3 ms·

Imho enough non-us sites have pointed out the fact that China has concentration camps. But hey, I guess there were doubters for nazi Germany too, and in this ag

Imho enough non-us sites have pointed out the fact that China has concentration camps. But hey, I guess there were doubters for nazi Germany too, and in this age, paid commenters trying to add doubt. Not that I'm accusing you directly, just I may be doubting your sincerity a little.

acqq 7y ago
> Imho enough non-us sites have pointed out the fact that China has concentration camps. If they simply reported about the U.S. claims, or the sources are the same in some other way, that shouldn't count as "more proof". Again, see the WMD story, and consider how long main stream media in multiple countries hasn't questioned that, now proved false, narration. > Not that I'm accusing you directly, just I may be doubting your sincerity a little. What you effectively promote is not even questioning the validity of some claims when it is e.g. "against China" so that as soon as I point the provable U.S. propaganda actions which even resulted in the wars before, I must be paid for that? In reality, those who are spreading the actual propaganda are those who are nicely paid for their work. That's exactly why I advocate extreme caution in unconditionally accepting the inflammatory claims, and the lines involving "Muslims in concentration camps" are obviously very much such.
- namirez 7y ago
  Actually it's China that appears to be borrowing from the US propaganda playbook by using the war on terror as a pretext for incarcerating up to 30% of an ethnic and religious minority. Even Human Rights Watch has reported on them. https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/09/09/eradicating-ideological-viruses/chinas-campaign-repression-against-xinjiangs https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/09/09/eradicating-ideologica...
  - acqq 7y ago
    Thanks for that link, I see no use of "concentration" camps term there. Where do you get that 30 percent though? That would be at least more than 3 million people! The biggest claim I know of is, as an example, 1700 out of some specific town of 32,000 inhabitants, and that could be realistic if the said town was indeed the center of the extremist activity, including some kind of preparing a paramilitary organization: https://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/target-06292018132506.html https://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/target-0629201813250... Note how that specific claim (of around 5% of that 32000 people town) is first blown up to be "10%" and then put in the title as "One in 10 Uyghur Residents of Xinjiang Township Jailed or Detained in ‘Re-Education Camp’" to bind the title not to the specific town but to the whole province with 11 million residents. Which is again less surprising knowing that it's RFA who publishes it that way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Asia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Asia Paid by U.S. taxpayers, initially directly organized by the CIA. Now it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Asia_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Asia_Foundation "the US government described the Asia Foundation as a "quasi-nongovernmental organizations" and said that "the core of its budget" was still provided by the US government." And even that RFA didn't use the "concentration" word.
    - namirez 7y ago
      I'm not claiming that I know the exact numbers; I don't. But this was reported by the same news outlet: https://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/millions-08032018142025.html https://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/millions-08032018142...

acqq 7y ago

> Imho enough non-us sites have pointed out the fact that China has concentration camps. If they simply reported about the U.S. claims, or the sources are the same in some other way, that shouldn't count as "more proof". Again, see the WMD story, and consider how long main stream media in multiple countries hasn't questioned that, now proved false, narration. > Not that I'm accusing you directly, just I may be doubting your sincerity a little. What you effectively promote is not even questioning the validity of some claims when it is e.g. "against China" so that as soon as I point the provable U.S. propaganda actions which even resulted in the wars before, I must be paid for that? In reality, those who are spreading the actual propaganda are those who are nicely paid for their work. That's exactly why I advocate extreme caution in unconditionally accepting the inflammatory claims, and the lines involving "Muslims in concentration camps" are obviously very much such.

namirez 7y ago
Actually it's China that appears to be borrowing from the US propaganda playbook by using the war on terror as a pretext for incarcerating up to 30% of an ethnic and religious minority. Even Human Rights Watch has reported on them. https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/09/09/eradicating-ideological-viruses/chinas-campaign-repression-against-xinjiangs https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/09/09/eradicating-ideologica...
- acqq 7y ago
  Thanks for that link, I see no use of "concentration" camps term there. Where do you get that 30 percent though? That would be at least more than 3 million people! The biggest claim I know of is, as an example, 1700 out of some specific town of 32,000 inhabitants, and that could be realistic if the said town was indeed the center of the extremist activity, including some kind of preparing a paramilitary organization: https://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/target-06292018132506.html https://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/target-0629201813250... Note how that specific claim (of around 5% of that 32000 people town) is first blown up to be "10%" and then put in the title as "One in 10 Uyghur Residents of Xinjiang Township Jailed or Detained in ‘Re-Education Camp’" to bind the title not to the specific town but to the whole province with 11 million residents. Which is again less surprising knowing that it's RFA who publishes it that way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Asia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Asia Paid by U.S. taxpayers, initially directly organized by the CIA. Now it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Asia_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Asia_Foundation "the US government described the Asia Foundation as a "quasi-nongovernmental organizations" and said that "the core of its budget" was still provided by the US government." And even that RFA didn't use the "concentration" word.
  - namirez 7y ago
    I'm not claiming that I know the exact numbers; I don't. But this was reported by the same news outlet: https://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/millions-08032018142025.html https://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/millions-08032018142...