5 ms·
No doubt you'll find something about everyone but that doesn't mean anything. Guantanamo was supposed to be for the worst of the worst terrorists. No doubt a f
by onetimemanytime 6y ago
No doubt you'll find something about everyone but that doesn't mean anything.
Guantanamo was supposed to be for the worst of the worst terrorists. No doubt a few were mistakenly selected but by mistake (USA has no interest in spending so much money and limited resources on a, say, innocent Pakistani cab driver.)
China has essentially put in camps /jail millions and millions of its citizens, simply because they are Muslim. And they're trying to wipe out their identity.
Now tell me how they compare ?
- cies 6y agoBoth did not have a fair trail. Saying it is only for group X but then not putting them on trail first is what both states do. Both say it is for "enemies of the state". Scale is probably different, you are right on that. But point fingers to other states while being dirty yourself is hypocrisy by definition.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago> Scale is probably different I'm not sure this is true. Could you please post the numbers at guantanamo and the numbers imprisoned at Xinjiang? That would help clarify this point, thanks.
- dsfyu404ed 6y agoThere is about four(!!!) orders of magnitude difference. >numbers at guantanamo Hundreds at any one time, under a hundred currently, well less than a thousand peak[1] >numbers imprisoned at Xinjiang On the order of millions[2] If you want to be disingenuous more effectively I suggest you get better and choosing when to ask for citations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_re-education_camps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_re-education_camps
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago> If you want to be disingenuous more effectively That it was a deliberate disingenuity seemed to have flown far and high over your head. What do you think I was trying to do?
- baybal2 6y ago> (USA has no interest in spending so much money and limited resources on a, say, innocent Pakistani cab driver.) I would like to educate you. USA has done just that.
- onetimemanytime 6y agoas I said it was done by mistake and dug a bigger hole by not wanting to admit wrong etc etc. They are /were only a few hundred placed in Guantanamo so why would they want to fill them with innocent people? Its not like they didn't have enough Al Qaeda and Taliban over there to catch
- thaumasiotes 6y ago> China has essentially put in camps /jail millions and millions of its citizens, simply because they are Muslim. No. Because they are Uyghurs. The Hui are a totally different phenomenon; Islam is one of the traditional religions of China. (Granted, with much less uptake than Buddhism got.)
- yorwba 6y agoNon-Muslim Uyghurs who make themselves useful for the government don't seem to be doing so bad for themselves, from Shohrat Zakir, the chairman of Xinjiang, down to Uyghur prison guards who have been called out by some Kazakh victims as especially brutal. (Why do people forget about Kazakh and Kyrgyz Muslims in Xinjiang so often?) And the "anti-extremism" push certainly applies to Hui Muslims as well, who had their mosques "renovated" to look less like mosques: https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=763356996 https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=763356996
- thaumasiotes 6y ago> Non-Muslim Uyghurs who make themselves useful for the government don't seem to be doing so bad for themselves The fact that certain individual Uyghurs are not targeted is not evidence that the reason oppressed Uyghurs are being oppressed is not "because they're Uyghurs". It's evidence that being a Uyghur can be mitigated. But if you prefer, "because they are members of a group with very questionable allegiance". This phrasing picks up the other Turkic groups in the area while still clearly excluding the Hui.