I agree but probably for different reasons.

> The sentence "signifies the total destruction of the Hong Kong legal system and the end of justice", Sebastien said.

Hong Kong was facing imperialist takeover by the PRC. The people in Hong Kong naively thought they could maintain some measure of self determination through public appeal and law - tools that don't work in the PRC. The CPC is founded on complicity shedding the blood of enemies of the Party, that's the only language it speaks and its default fallback tool.

If the Hong Kong protests had continued into insurgency, the CPC would have simply sent in the PLA and massacred people. It would create some legal justification afterwards, of course.

In Taiwan, I think we haven't fully reckoned with the reality of dealing with Imperialists. See: Venezuela. If an imperialist country wants to have its way with you, there's basically nothing you can do from a military, political, or legal standpoint to stop it. Non-statist strategies are needed.

You could go the way of Mao but I think in the modern era a peasant army simply can't stand up to waves of drones and high accuracy targeted missile strikes. And besides, Mao's revolution became exactly the thing it was meant to overthrow: a capitalist, imperialist, stratified society. This will probably be the same fate of any successful violent revolution (see The Anarchist Cookbook by Keith McHenry for further examples). Anyway, never fight imperialists on their own grounds.

I don't know if anything short term could have prevented the PRC's takeover of Hong Kong, but protesting was basically pointless. That time should have been spent setting up alternative channels of communication, alternative means of resource distribution, and perhaps infiltration of same into the territory of the PRC to destabilize the legitimacy of the CPC there.