For at least ten years, the Chinese Communist Party has been abducting its overseas citizens on EU territory and forcibly returning them to China - violating the rule of law and public security in Europe - a new report finds.
Full report: https://safeguarddefenders.com/sites/default/files/pdf/Chasing%20Fox%20Hunt.pdf
Archived version: https://archive.ph/lEYCn
EDIT: The discussion shifted to off-topic and insults. Post locked.
There are a wide variety of legal ways to kidnap someone. Such as the one I described which happened to me.
How is this logic different from the article's? You're both calling a legal arrest you don't like "kidnapping."
See also: a libertarian saying "of course you can legally steal, it's called taxes!"
Why are you bootlicking? The US government doesn't define common English words and their usage, and it's very weird that you seem to think that the fact that they have control over the land means that they are incapable of committing violence against people. What the government goons I am describing did to me were acts of state-sanctioned violence in which I was taken under threat of physical harm to a location I did not want to go to and held against my will despite having done absolutely nothing to deserve violence being inflicted upon me. People with fucking souls call that abduction/kidnapping, where is your soul?
Jesus Christ. Having a consistent definition of "kidnapping" is not bootlicking.
Consistency is when you can't call an act of violence what it is if it's cops committing the act of violence
Are you an anarchist? I'm not. Like every AES state, I think it's possible to have justifiable government actions. Governments have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, so yeah, a cop making a legal arrest is not the same as me hitting a stranger over the head and stuffing them in a van.
It's not hitting a stranger over the head and stuffing them in a van. It's "an arrest." You can't call it hitting a stranger over the head and stuffing them in a van, because of who's doing it.
This isn't a theory discussion, it's a fucking linguistics discussion. You're insisting that the word "abduction" refers only to a legal term, which it does not. Obviously it does not. Idk what more to say.