查看完整版本: 看清楚西方國家的人權標淮

看清楚西方國家的人權標淮

人權監察指以軍濫殺記者 要求徹查
【01:30】2008年04月20日

【on.cc專訊】 以紐約為基地的人權監察組織，在周六要求以色列就一名電視攝影記者及另外三人，在周三遭以軍炮火打死的事件進行調查。

人權監察的聲明指出，該組織的調查顯示，路透社電視攝影記者薩那及站在他身旁的三人，遭以軍坦克士兵「蓄意或瘋狂地」開火殺死，又引述目擊者指出，薩耶遇害時附近並沒有戰鬥發生。以色列一個人權組織日前亦表示，薩耶是遭以軍炮彈散發的碎片殺死的。


加沙持續戰亂 至少22人死亡

[url]http://www.chinareviewnews.com[/url]   2008-04-18 03:52:08  


　　中評社溫哥華4月17日電/ 加沙地帶星期三（4月16）日的武裝沖突造成至少22人死亡，其中包括5名巴勒斯坦兒童。星期三是自從以色列軍隊在三月初再度進攻加沙以來沖突最爲嚴重的一日。

　　據BBC報道，當天哈馬斯在加沙北部伏擊了以色列軍人，造成3名以軍士兵死亡。這是以軍三年來單日內陣亡人數最多的一日。以軍隨即對布賴杰難民營發動空襲，理由是難民營內有以軍要打擊的巴勒斯坦武裝分子。空襲造成11人死亡，其中包括5名兒童。哈馬斯說，以色列直升機至少發射了4枚導彈。

　　另外，路透社一名23歲的攝影記者沙納所駕駛的標有“媒體”字樣的汽車據信受到以軍坦克襲擊，沙納和另外兩人當場喪生。此外，以軍發動的另外一次空襲造成拜特拉耶亞一輛汽車受打擊，車上一名男子死亡。聯合國秘書長潘基文表示，巴以沖擊的明顯升級令他感到嚴重關切，他同時呼籲雙方保持克制。以色列3月初爲報複及阻止巴勒斯坦武裝分子向以色列境內發射火箭炮而進攻加沙，最初數日的戰鬥造成至少100巴勒斯坦人死亡。不過BBC記者弗蘭克斯指出，由于埃及介入斡旋，巴以雙方沖突有所平息，但是最新的沖突意味著埃及起碼近期不太可能說服雙方停火。

[color=Red]記者被殺要就要進行調查，空襲造成11人死亡，其中包括5名兒童，人權監察組織不調查？[/color]

[[i] 本帖最後由 八皇爺 於 2008-4-20 10:21 編輯 [/i]]

以色列係美國既靚 點會錯, 錯左班英法西人都唔敢多聲氣:reading:

[size=6]人權監察只監察中國人權狀況，對於美軍、以軍濫殺無辜視而不見！[/size]

英國市場研究機構Opinion Research Business，在伊拉克進行一項為期兩年的全國性調查，2007年 9月發表研究結果指出，自美軍入侵四年內，約有一百二十萬名伊拉克人死亡，一百萬人傷殘，四百多萬人淪為難民（約佔伊總人口六分之一）。報告並指出，美軍暴行已遠超過1994年的盧安達種族滅絕大屠殺之八十萬死亡人數。

[quote]原帖由 [i]八皇爺[/i] 於 2008-4-20 21:46 發表
英國市場研究機構Opinion Research Business，在伊拉克進行一項為期兩年的全國性調查，2007年 9月發表研究結果指出，自美軍入侵四年內，約有一百二十萬名伊拉克人死亡，一百萬人傷殘，四百多萬人淪為難民（約佔伊 ... [/quote]


由"英國市場研究機構",你相信的話就明白什麼是開明了
唔通又當佢係買國集團??

[quote]原帖由 [i]kenny01[/i] 於 2008-4-20 14:01 發表



由"英國市場研究機構",你相信的話就明白什麼是開明了
唔通又當佢係買國集團?? [/quote]
看不明白你是什麼意思
請說明

[quote]原帖由 [i]八皇爺[/i] 於 2008-4-20 22:15 發表

看不明白你是什麼意思
請說明 [/quote]


所以咪叫你諗下0羅...
做人係要用個腦諗下野架........

[quote]原帖由 [i]kenny01[/i] 於 2008-4-20 22:01 發表



由"英國市場研究機構",你相信的話就明白什麼是開明了
唔通又當佢係買國集團?? [/quote]

真係太高深喎，睇唔明
究竟係買定賣呀？

[quote]原帖由 [i]kenny01[/i] 於 2008-4-20 22:01 發表



由"英國市場研究機構",你相信的話就明白什麼是開明了
唔通又當佢係買國集團?? [/quote]

CNN唔話英美班西人係暴民惡棍既? 開明就係指殺左咁多人只要話係為左和平幫助伊拉克人同情死傷既人,不過人繼續可以殺 ,呢D正係強盜 邏輯

[[i] 本帖最後由 keve0223 於 2008-4-21 02:24 編輯 [/i]]

買國集團?????

買起伊拉克, 所以可以為所欲為??

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

[quote]原帖由 [i]cintaku[/i] 於 2008-4-21 01:32 發表
有意識鮋「筆誤」，鬼佬集團唔會「賣」鬼國，只會「買」貴國，
所以用「買」字，讓你暈陀陀。
確實高深難測！ [/quote]
[size=6]不敢指責米飯班主，轉移討論目標。[/size]

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

[quote]原帖由 [i]理魯竇[/i] 於 2008-4-20 22:48 發表


真係太高深喎，睇唔明
究竟係買定賣呀？ [/quote]

咁都唔明 ?  :saujai:
洋人高尚情操, 幫理不幫親, 開明, 不畏強權...
係我輩未開化低下民族的神明 :bow:

[quote]原帖由 [i]飛毛腿[/i] 於 2008-4-21 05:28 發表


咁都唔明 ?  :saujai:
洋人高尚情操, 幫理不幫親, 開明, 不畏強權...
係我輩未開化低下民族的神明 :bow: [/quote]
[size=6]以紐約為基地的人權監察組織不敢調查！:shutup:
香港人權監察為何都不敢出聲？[/size]:boxing:

伊拉克兒童何罪
受到如此傷害

大家要看青楚西方國家的人權標準

再來多一幅...........................

你也看看中共對人權的標準！

[img]http://www.boxun.com/hero/64/60410.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.boxun.com/hero/64/60415.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.boxun.com/hero/64/60454.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.boxun.com/hero/64/60452.jpg[/img]

[[i] 本帖最後由 一枝公 於 2008-4-22 00:02 編輯 [/i]]

一如所料
又是摷返呢 d 舊料來頂檔
本題目是討論西方國家的人權標準
如此看來
都是五十步笑百步
洋奴們豈不是自貶身價

還有，你的照片是不是CNN 的？

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

[quote]原帖由 [i]理魯竇[/i] 於 2008-4-22 00:19 發表
一如所料
又是摷返呢 d 舊料來頂檔
本題目是討論西方國家的人權標準
如此看來
都是五十步笑百步
洋奴們豈不是自貶身價

還有，你的照片是不是CNN 的？ [/quote]
一如所料,一提中共臭史、成班土共撲出黎替中共"掹"屎！又唔見你批評中共悪劣人權？同胞人權都唔去関心、走去批評別國人權、你厘種行為同小布殊有乜分別？人民日報話齋:「 把 自 己 的 事 情 辦 好 」。照片是不是CNN 的？係唔係有乜関係？你有種就講所有相都係流既、係洋人合成照。你有種就學袁木話齋、長安大街和天安門廣場無死過人。:shit:

[quote]原帖由 [i]熙官[/i] 於 2008-4-22 00:36 發表
低能! 使唔使南京大屠殺d 相都post埋呀?
明明係講西方國家的人權標準, 又要拉64落水. 點呀? 即係人衰你就可以衰? 重好細呀? 比miss捉到上堂傾計, 就話阿邊個都有傾喎....
幼稚即係幼稚. [/quote]
低能! 南京大屠殺係戰爭暴行、乜64係戰爭咩？將兩件事相提並論、你係唔係有病呀！你老哥鍾意打老婆、會唔會走去干渉別人打老婆呀！:shit:

[quote]原帖由 [i]cintaku[/i] 於 2008-4-22 00:58 發表

西方對人權的標准等同中共對人權的標准；一個半斤一個八兩？
西方不遣責自已的標准，你也不遣責西方的人權；
西方遣責中共的人權標准，你也遣責中共的人權標准。
睇來你等同西方人士，
是同一鼻孔出氣，還是 ... [/quote]
相片中是什麼人？中國人、即係同胞！美國佬發動戰亊殺人雖可恥、但中共屠殺同胞更可恨！美國同中共有所分別、美軍陸戰隊鎗頭祇有向外、而解放軍鎗嘴永遠向内！

[quote]原帖由 [i]飛鳥[/i] 於 2008-4-20 21:09 發表
人權監察只監察中國人權狀況，對於美軍、以軍濫殺無辜視而不見！ [/quote]
仲有土耳其打库尔德人呢？

[quote]原帖由 [i]熙官[/i] 於 2008-4-21 11:16 發表

所以咪叫你諗下0羅...
做人係要用個腦諗下野架........  ;P;P;P

[color=Red]如果有的話.... [/color][/quote]
如果自以为有的话…又点呢？吹咩？:lol

[quote]原帖由 [i]一枝公[/i] 於 2008-4-22 22:31 發表

相片中是什麼人？中國人、即係同胞！美國佬發動戰亊殺人雖可恥、但中共屠殺同胞更可恨！美國同中共有所分別、美軍陸戰隊鎗頭祇有向外、而解放軍鎗嘴永遠向内！ [/quote]
甘又唔可以甘讲…国民党都有屠杀同胞！而且共党极其量都系"斗"人(当然距地无当果的系人，系黑五类！)，系D同胞受唔住而死姐！;P

太殘忍,太涼薄
唔合用來說笑...

由其是係果句...係佢地忍唔住..

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

[quote]原帖由 [i]cintaku[/i] 於 2008-4-23 11:40 發表

中共可恨，美國就可愛？至少你只為美國辯解；
虧你識得講：中國人、即係同胞！
一路以來，你知唔知，你�鵅u槍頭」究竟向內還是向外？ [/quote]

比喻得好!!!呢條友反中反到痴左, 佢可能當自己係西人

[quote]原帖由 [i]cintaku[/i] 於 2008-4-23 11:40 發表

中共可恨，美國就可愛？至少你只為美國辯解；
虧你識得講：中國人、即係同胞！
一路以來，你知唔知，你�鵅u槍頭」究竟向內還是向外？ [/quote]

唔係幫佢講野..想討論一下
槍口只有對外跟內這兩種嗎

以公義同道理,超越民族性是否不可行呢?

有好幾個國家,其中一個,唔理佢地既首領有幾奸,但人民係以自由正義公理為目標,佢地既愛國,亦係愛以上三種...

我希望我地既國家,亦可以以追求公義,超越以種族來團結人心..

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

[quote]原帖由 [i]cintaku[/i] 於 2008-4-23 16:07 發表
你話啦，自已比人的印象係點？
， ... [/quote]

因為呢度好多人既立場,唔贊成就係反對既反智想法,所以要先講..

覺得超越現實,因為我地個民族都係咁樣諗野,正如國內好多人覺得環保係脫實現實,賺錢先係正道一樣...

要自豪自己身為中國人,響而家呢個年代唔係剩係講錢就得既..

台灣人自豪自己成為唯一可以不流血而政黨輪替既中國人地方...甚至亞洲亦不多見...

另外我唔覺得公義係純真,香港亦自豪於我地係以法先行,理情排在後面既中國人社會...那法律追求的又是什麼...

[[i] 本帖最後由 kenny01 於 2008-4-23 17:19 編輯 [/i]]

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

[quote]原帖由 [i]cintaku[/i] 於 2008-4-23 11:40 發表

中共可恨，美國就可愛？至少你只為美國辯解；
虧你識得講：中國人、即係同胞！
一路以來，你知唔知，你�鵅u槍頭」究竟向內還是向外？ [/quote]
美國就可愛？邊句替美國辯解？寫來睇睇！換句來講、你認為中共屠殺同胞係應該既！你認為中共出賣國土係合理既！:shit:

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

[quote]原帖由 [i]熙官[/i] 於 2008-4-23 22:48 發表

慣啦! 做一支公唔易架... ;P [/quote]
甘[color=Red]欺[/color]骗[color=Red]观[/color]众易唔易？:lol:lol:lol

[quote]原帖由 [i]cintaku[/i] 於 2008-4-23 22:46 發表

語無倫次，癡心夢語 [/quote]
唖口無言、真可隣！:shit:

[quote]原帖由 [i]熙官[/i] 於 2008-4-23 22:48 發表

慣啦! 做一支公唔易架... ;P [/quote]
慣啦!做土共唔易架！面皮要夠厚.;P

[quote]原帖由 [i]cintaku[/i] 於 2008-4-23 18:29 發表

連自已也不愛這土地、不認這國族，中國還由誰來維護？
但無論再怎麼不情願，人�]仍然視你係中國人，這是改變不了的事實。[/quote]

所以情感上我會支持,但情感上唔係大曬既...

文化大革命既時候,如果唔係個個有咁既思想,破壞亦唔會咁嚴重, 有志氣有思想既人亦唔會死得咁慘..

六四既時候,你沒有為學生留過一滴眼淚嗎??

當真理正義法治人權得到執行既時候,愛國既情緒才會變得可貴

否則只會淪為當權者既遊戲...

『當真理正義法治人權得到執行既時候,愛國既情緒才會變得可貴』

[size=5]請問kenny01所說真理正義法治人權得到執行既時候是指什麼時候？
是中國政府或者說中國共產黨被推倒的時候對嗎？[/size]

[[i] 本帖最後由 八皇爺 於 2008-4-24 05:16 編輯 [/i]]

[quote]原帖由 [i]八皇爺[/i] 於 2008-4-24 13:12 發表
『當真理正義法治人權得到執行既時候,愛國既情緒才會變得可貴』

請問kenny01所說真理正義法治人權得到執行既時候是指什麼時候？
是中國政府或者說中國共產黨被推倒的時候對嗎？ [/quote]


點解你咁問呢...
你覺得中國政府或者說中國共產黨唔可以有真理正義同埋法治咩....

如果我持平D黎�O今次西藏件事:
1. 我在新間片中�O到有暴亂, 有人攞棍打人, 有人掟石燒舖
2. 冇人有提供外國傳媒所謂侵犯人權証據, 無短片及無任何受害人企出黎講野

雖然本人不太喜歡共產獨裁, 但我今次又覺得北京政府無做錯事 (so far).
任何負責任政府首要任務都要保護市民生命財產安全
有人通街打人掟石燒舖, 政府派人鎮壓拉人係正常做法
就算發生起美國更加會開槍, 同セセ政冶人權無關
吾能够因為吾仲意個政權就當佢做セ都係錯
更加同愛吾愛國無關

件事我覺得係執法事件, 吾係政冶事件
但係比人搞到好政冶化

[quote]原帖由 [i]BenChek[/i] 於 2008-4-24 16:19 發表
如果我持平D黎�O今次西藏件事:
1. 我在新間片中�O到有暴亂, 有人攞棍打人, 有人掟石燒舖
2. 冇人有提供外國傳媒所謂侵犯人權証據, 無短片及無任何受害人企出黎講野

雖然本人不太喜歡共產獨裁, 但我今次 ... [/quote]


只差一點點...

如果佢唔係趕曬d傳媒走,(遊客就講得通),比人影到真相就一流,不過佢呢套原來響國內(包括香港係work既)

當你看到這些所謂(借你字眼)新聞片段時,你知不知是發的資料呢,可曾想起當年六月的五號,六號,你看到官方的新聞片是什麼,無數公安軍隊比平民打,警車被燒..

如果唔係香港一些勇敢傳媒,在槍林彈雨下,伏在平台關燈錄影,你會唔會想信,某高官講既:[一個死人都沒有呢?]

我相信我們國家是進步的,我相信今次沒有鎮壓,但點解唔比傳媒進入拍攝真相,陰謀論話外國記者唔公道,咁比香港記者0羅,更何況呢次係好機會影住佢地公唔公正,如果有一兩個暴民傷到佢地,中國仲唔拿曬分...

[[i] 本帖最後由 kenny01 於 2008-4-24 17:25 編輯 [/i]]

[quote]
我相信我們國家是進步的,我相信今次沒有鎮壓,但點解唔比傳媒進入拍攝真相,陰謀論話外國記者唔公道,咁比香港記者0羅,更何況呢次係好機會影住佢地公唔公正,如果有一兩個暴民傷到佢地,中國仲唔拿曬分...
[/quote]

北京應該冇停止外國記者簽証, 好以己經有澄清咗
只係地方公安趕走及阻止傳媒進入拍攝, 以為方便做野, 點知害咗呀媽

我覺得係地方官處事質素問題, 唉.....無辦法
中國40至60歲係失落一代, 大部份人教育程度低, 處事手法亦是 (當然有例外, 衹講大部份)
可惜現時大部份地方官員都係呢批人

吾好以為外國對呢班人覺得頭痛
我相信北京政府對住呢班土皇帝地方官更加頭痛 :dizzy:

US Complicity in the War Crimes of Saddam Hussein

[img]http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/images/1219-04.jpg[/img]


Partners in Crime: US Complicity in the War Crimes of Saddam Hussein  
by Paul Rockwell
  
Notwithstanding the upcoming show-trial of Saddam Hussein in Occupied Iraq, U.S. complicity in the war crimes of its former military ally may well become the most eye-opening issue facing the international community in the coming months.

There is a revealing photograph of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with a known war criminal in 1983-Saddam Hussein. If Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld were forced to testify at an impartial, international war crimes tribunal, no doubt he would be asked: "What did you know, and when did you know it?

Of all the conventions in humanitarian law, none is more relevant to contemporary affairs than the Nuremberg principle: "Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, is a crime under international law."


Once and future Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein shake hands December 20, 1983 in Baghdad, Iraq. Rumsfeld met with Hussein during the war between Iran and Iraq as an envoy for former US President Ronald Reagan. (Photo by Getty Images)

The jurists at Nuremberg enacted the law of complicity only after long deliberations about the essential dynamics of modern war crimes. They recognized that modern industrial atrocities are collective in nature. War criminals do not act alone, and their capacity for mass brutality depends on a supply of sophisticated weapons, business deals, international finance, contracts and covert shipments, coordination and training, diplomatic protection, and the winks and nods of international Machiavellian politics. Nuremberg's farsighted judges codified the complicity principle in order to protect future generations from the scourge of war and terror.

There is no better interpreter of war crimes, of man's inhumanity to man, than Hannah Arendt, who published a definitive book on the trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1963. Eichmann was not a top official in the Nazi Party. He was a mere accomplice, a bureaucrat who facilitated the deportation of millions of Jews into the concentration camps. He never pulled a switch, and he kept a healthy distance from the consequences of his handiwork. As an administrator who "did his job," made no big decisions, he was still a key part of the machinery of mass murder. It was not any demonic trait of Eichmann's personality, but the "banality of evil" that appalled Arendt most of all.

Arendt warned against sensationalistic accounts of the Holocaust, the demonization of individual personalities. She called attention to "the unspeakable horror of the deeds and the ordinariness of the men who committed them." Impartial, dignified war crime tribunals are not an occasion for gloating or propaganda. At their best they give voice to all the victims, produce a complete record for future generations, and help to prevent more war crimes from taking place. They produce a sense of humility among all the participants. Triumphalism degrades mankind's memory of itself.

International accomplices of Saddam Hussein have yet to be arrested, named, interrogated, much less held accountable for their crimes against peace and humanity.

The victims of Saddam and his accomplices, Iranians as well as Iraqis, have a right to know: Who armed Iraq? Who built Saddam's arsenal of terror in the '80s? They also have a right to interrogate Rumsfeld, other U.S. officials, CIA agents, and U.S. arms merchants as suspects or witnesses. The executives of Alcoliac International of Maryland, that transported mustard gas precursors to Saddam; the Tennessee manufacturers that provided sarin-based chemicals; the heads of Dow chemical who sold toxins that cause death by asphyxiation; the heads of Bechtel that produced chemicals for Saddam in their Iraqi plant; the CIA agents that made covert arms deals and transported heinous cluster bombs to a known war criminal-all the participants in Iraq's machine of death should come before an international court and answer a single question: What did you know, and when did you know it? It is not just the buyers, it is suppliers of death who are accountable under the Nuremberg Conventions.

Justice will be served only after the official records of U.S. and European complicity are made public.

In December 2002, Bush seized 800 incriminating pages of the 2,000-page Iraqi report to the U.N., pages that contained the names of U.S. companies that supplied arms to Saddam, including details on weapons, dual-use technologies, and materials of mass destruction. That censored report, which rightfully belongs to the victims, not Bush, constitutes a major piece of evidence for any impartial war crimes tribunal.

The National Security Decision Directive 114 of November 26, 1983, replete with revelations on U.S. collusion with Saddam Hussein, should be declassified. The world has a right to know the truth and see the evidence.

28 Years of U.S. Support

U.S. officials colluded with Saddam's regime for over 28 years. Like the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein became another son of Frankenstein, a creature of U.S. foreign policy.

In 1963 the CIA helped the Ba'athist Party overthrow General Abdel-Karim Kassem, who was gunned down with other leaders from a list supplied by the CIA. One of the conspirators was a young, ruthless insurgent named Saddam Hussein. After a purge and revolt, the Ba'athists took total control of Iraq, and Saddam Hussein took power in 1979. Together, the U.S. and its surrogate waged a brutal, illegal war against Iran for eight years. In violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 (which outlaws chemical warfare) the Reagan-Bush Administration authorized the sale of poisonous chemicals and deadly biological stocks, including anthrax. Iraq was already was using chemical weapons-on an "almost daily basis," according to the Washington Post-when envoy Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein in 1983, an historic meeting that consolidated an active military partnership. The repression and brutality of Saddam's regime was not a secret when U.S. and Iraqi officials coordinated their military efforts. Not only did the U.S. supply planes, munitions and bombs, it supplied the satellite images that enabled Saddam to massacre thousands of Iranians. Twenty-four U.S. firms exported arms and material to Baghdad. France also sent 200 AMX medium tanks, mirage bombers, and Gazelle helicopter gunships.

What is the legal and moral difference between German industries that manufactured ovens for concentration camps in Europe and U.S. and European merchants of death who supplied Saddam Hussein with cluster bombs, nuclear materials, anthrax spores, helicopters, and the most heinous weapons directed against innocent Iranian people?

The vast, lucrative arms trade in the Middle East laid the ground work for Saddam's aggression. Without high-tech weapons from the U.S., Iraq's wars against Iran and Kuwait would never have taken place. Complicity makes a difference.

It was not Saddam's atrocities-his torture rooms, his gassing of the Kurds, the use of chemicals against Iranians, his crimes against peace-that turned Rumsfeld and U.S. officials against Iraq. It was the invasion of Kuwait, which threatened Western oil, that transformed Saddam from an ally into "the butcher of Baghdad." Prior to the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, few Americans ever heard about Saddam's atrocities. In a typical white-wash of Saddam's crimes the New Republic (April, 1987) noted "a degree of moderation," in Iraq. Its editors described Iraq as "an independent militaristic regional power...the de facto protector of the regional status quo."

And it is certainly reasonable to believe that, had Saddam refrained from invading Kuwait, the alliance between Iraq and the U.S. would still be in place today. No doubt the photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam would still be hanging from the wall of the White House.

[quote]原帖由 [i]BenChek[/i] 於 2008-4-24 17:57 發表
北京應該冇停止外國記者簽証, 好以己經有澄清咗
只係地方公安趕走及阻止傳媒進入拍攝, 以為方便做野, 點知害咗呀媽

我覺得係地方官處事質素問題, 唉.....無辦法
中國40至60歲係失落一代, 大部份人教育程度低, 處事手法亦是 (當然有例外, 衹講大部份)
可惜現時大部份地方官員都係呢批人

吾好以為外國對呢班人覺得頭痛
我相信北京政府對住呢班土皇帝地方官更加頭痛    ... [/quote]

絕對係,
所以十幾年前開始流行兩句說話,
上有政策, 下有對策,
呢兩句說話就係形容班地方貪官.