4 ms·

I think most countries criticizing this don’t have an active organ harvesting and internment camp operation against ethnic and religious groups, though. I would

by pimmen 7y ago

I think most countries criticizing this don’t have an active organ harvesting and internment camp operation against ethnic and religious groups, though. I would rather compare it to a drunk driver judging a serial rapist, at least if we’re going to look one decade or so into the past.

luckylion 7y ago
> I think most countries criticizing this don’t have an active organ harvesting and internment camp operation against ethnic and religious groups, though. That's true, though I have a feeling the "guests" at the US black sites would've preferred to be transferred to Chinese Gulags. Were Libya, Iraq or Syria drunk driving accidents? I suppose we might disagree here. Everybody always claims they do the terrible things they commit to make the world a better place tomorrow. Who you support in their doings and who you call a villain is up to you. I suppose if HN was created in China and majority Chinese, most here would argue differently.
- pimmen 7y ago
  I'm not arguing that the black sites weren't horrible, however thousands of people being kidnapped by the CIA is less than almost a million people kidnapped by China in Xinjiang. And this is only talking about what China has knowingly done indiscriminantly towards innocent civilians, the torture and disapperances of people who have been charged or investigated for crimes against the Chinese state (which is more comparable to how people were put into the black sites) is mind boggling, in some cases just writing a blog post has resulted in torture. The wars in Libya, Syria and Iraq did see their share of human rights abuses, and yes some of these crimes were denied by the US, but by and large the US worked with the local population as best they could and investigated soldiers for war crimes when there was sufficient evidence which is light years more than what can be said of what the Chinese government has done which is permanently in denial mode. Not saying the US shouldn't address and improve their own record of human rights abuses, and indeed address those that are currently ongoing (such as the detention of immigrants without a trial), but claiming that they have no business criticizing the ongoing, orders of magnitude larger Chinese human rights abuses is going to make the world a worse place.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    I suppose we have different perspectives, you compare the absolute numbers, I take China's size into consideration. Broken down to a country of Saudi Arabia's size, they'd have some 10000 people in prison, not millions. Nevertheless, I agree with you that their deeds are appalling, though I tend to have some understanding for authoritarianism, even the violent kind. My problem with the way you paint Libya, Syria and Iraq (there was some overreach, but by and large, they were working with the locals) is that this shifts responsibility away from those that attacked. They removed the state and the stable equilibrium of powers and installed ... nothing. As expected, the territories degenerated into a tribalistic civil war with all kinds of horrible things (which, and how many, of these groups were created/led/funded by the CIA, we'll likely know at some point in the future). ISIS/ISIL are a direct consequence of this policy, and so are slave markets in Libya. Certainly these weren't declared goals, but I don't believe the top officials to be stupid, they were well aware of what happens when you remove the dictator of a country that is only held together by his iron first - especially when they did it over and over, allegedly expecting different results. > Not saying the US shouldn't address and improve their own record of human rights abuses, and indeed address those that are currently ongoing (such as the detention of immigrants without a trial), but claiming that they have no business criticizing the ongoing, orders of magnitude larger Chinese human rights abuses is going to make the world a worse place. But this wasn't stated anywhere, was it? The OP said that focusing on China would be a major factor in his voting decision. He was asked whether he'd ignore US abuses. As I tried to clumsily state elsewhere: it's much easier to change your own behavior than that of others, so if it's "I want less abuse in the world" that you want, start with your own and make "end the abuse" the top priority in your decision who to elect into the office of the president and commander in chief of the most powerful offensive military in the world. No Iraq, Libya, Syria and a million or two wouldn't be dead, with many millions more displaced and on the run. My feeling is that China, with all the terrible things they do, still has to stretch a lot to come close to that.

by pimmen 7y ago

luckylion 7y ago

> I think most countries criticizing this don’t have an active organ harvesting and internment camp operation against ethnic and religious groups, though. That's true, though I have a feeling the "guests" at the US black sites would've preferred to be transferred to Chinese Gulags. Were Libya, Iraq or Syria drunk driving accidents? I suppose we might disagree here. Everybody always claims they do the terrible things they commit to make the world a better place tomorrow. Who you support in their doings and who you call a villain is up to you. I suppose if HN was created in China and majority Chinese, most here would argue differently.

pimmen 7y ago
I'm not arguing that the black sites weren't horrible, however thousands of people being kidnapped by the CIA is less than almost a million people kidnapped by China in Xinjiang. And this is only talking about what China has knowingly done indiscriminantly towards innocent civilians, the torture and disapperances of people who have been charged or investigated for crimes against the Chinese state (which is more comparable to how people were put into the black sites) is mind boggling, in some cases just writing a blog post has resulted in torture. The wars in Libya, Syria and Iraq did see their share of human rights abuses, and yes some of these crimes were denied by the US, but by and large the US worked with the local population as best they could and investigated soldiers for war crimes when there was sufficient evidence which is light years more than what can be said of what the Chinese government has done which is permanently in denial mode. Not saying the US shouldn't address and improve their own record of human rights abuses, and indeed address those that are currently ongoing (such as the detention of immigrants without a trial), but claiming that they have no business criticizing the ongoing, orders of magnitude larger Chinese human rights abuses is going to make the world a worse place.
- luckylion 7y ago
  I suppose we have different perspectives, you compare the absolute numbers, I take China's size into consideration. Broken down to a country of Saudi Arabia's size, they'd have some 10000 people in prison, not millions. Nevertheless, I agree with you that their deeds are appalling, though I tend to have some understanding for authoritarianism, even the violent kind. My problem with the way you paint Libya, Syria and Iraq (there was some overreach, but by and large, they were working with the locals) is that this shifts responsibility away from those that attacked. They removed the state and the stable equilibrium of powers and installed ... nothing. As expected, the territories degenerated into a tribalistic civil war with all kinds of horrible things (which, and how many, of these groups were created/led/funded by the CIA, we'll likely know at some point in the future). ISIS/ISIL are a direct consequence of this policy, and so are slave markets in Libya. Certainly these weren't declared goals, but I don't believe the top officials to be stupid, they were well aware of what happens when you remove the dictator of a country that is only held together by his iron first - especially when they did it over and over, allegedly expecting different results. > Not saying the US shouldn't address and improve their own record of human rights abuses, and indeed address those that are currently ongoing (such as the detention of immigrants without a trial), but claiming that they have no business criticizing the ongoing, orders of magnitude larger Chinese human rights abuses is going to make the world a worse place. But this wasn't stated anywhere, was it? The OP said that focusing on China would be a major factor in his voting decision. He was asked whether he'd ignore US abuses. As I tried to clumsily state elsewhere: it's much easier to change your own behavior than that of others, so if it's "I want less abuse in the world" that you want, start with your own and make "end the abuse" the top priority in your decision who to elect into the office of the president and commander in chief of the most powerful offensive military in the world. No Iraq, Libya, Syria and a million or two wouldn't be dead, with many millions more displaced and on the run. My feeling is that China, with all the terrible things they do, still has to stretch a lot to come close to that.