weegee64, see if we critically examine the two situation, you will find that the difference so minimal.
Let me give you an example, many of the potential terrorists, as called in US, are just that potential. Many of them have not committed any action to the US government. And on top of that, they are arrested outside of US soil.
Now, many American think it is OK for US government to do this.
Would you for a second imagine if the Chinese government go to another country and arrest someone for potential terrorists? What would you say?
Now, about the so called peaceful resistance... first of all, what's the difference between peaceful resistance and potential terrorists to a government? No difference, not at all. Second, peacefl resistance are simply those who haven't committed any harmful action yet, can you garauntee that they would never committ any harmful action though? Of course you can't. So why is it OK for US government to commit preeptive strike and arrest poeple who MAY POTENTIALLY harm US government from other country, but it's NOT ok for the Chinese Government to do the same?
Principle on principle, would you please answer me why the same action from two countries, based on the same principle, results in such a difference in your eyes?
Thirdly, about the definition of oppressive government... I don't dispute that China is an oppressive government. But I dispute that America is not an oppresive government. Let me show you some example:
1. Why can't I legally drink after 18 but before 21? After 18, poeple can join military and die for the country but they can't drink... Is this not a law that limit my freedom and oppresive?
2. Why is it that America had conducted the highest number of invasion post WWII against other countries in the world? Why is it so OK that American Government can assert its will power against poeple of other country while government of other countries can't assert its will power against their own poeple? Isn't this somewhat hypocritical?
3. While American top officials are less crupted in the eyes of public, it was done so by way of legalizing bribes and cruption. For example, when ex-Vice President C became vice president, his ex company (the weapon company) stock went up multifolds. Now, who do you think holds a large number of stock options in that company? Who do you think influcenced the US government to give huge contracts to that company? But hey, it's all legal.