4 ms·

Because history told us that public consensus and official conclusion could be lies. Remember the reason that the US invaded Iraq?

by fqye 6y ago

warbaker 6y ago
Not sure how you can equate these two. Iraq invasion was driven by faulty intelligence gathered in secret by a spy organization. Here, we have millions of eye witnesses and tons of corroborating evidence.
- fqye 6y ago
  > Here, we have millions of eye witnesses and tons of corroborating evidence. The fact that this report is up to questioning shows that it isn't true. If you read this report thoroughly, you can find out it just shows there are this sort of buildings in Xinjiang but no logic or proof that they are concentration camps and there is no evidence at least in the report that the buildings are in use.
  - grugagag 6y ago
    You’re in denial. Your country is doing this, theres incontestable evidence already. At least take in the facts and say you don’t care or that it’s your country’s business what they do internally but keeping on denying it doesn’t do anything at this point. The cat’s out of the bag already!
    - fqye 6y ago
      There are lots of accusations against China's Xinjiang practice. They are all mixed together unintentionally or intentionally to mud the water. The accusation of concentration camp is exaggerated and there is no credible hard evidence. This report is highly questionable. That is my opinion and what we are debating now. Human right issues in Xinjiang? Yes. I am not questioning that.
      - ghostwriter 6y ago
        what would be a "credible hard evidence" for you?
        grugagag 6y ago
        China wouldn’t allow that kind of evidence: direct footage of people being psychologically and even physically tortured, proof of organ harvesting, etc. That’s like evidence that is very hard to obtain having how tight a grip China has, but there are leaks from time to time. Once again if China had nothing to hide and reporting was allowed we wouldn’t be having this conversation
        fqye 6y ago
        images or videos of families confined in a camp, children, women and old men / women from reliable source. When we talk about concentration camp, it is always about large number of families.
        ghostwriter 6y ago
        Who/what would be a "reliable source" for you? Also, a concentration camp is not defined in terms of families/women/children confined in it, there were many concentration camps in history that captured individual members of families, who were not ideologically aligned with a totalitarian regime of that time and place, the whole soviet Gulag system was built on secrecy and minimal exposure to public, when individual members of your family might not get back home from a grocery store one day and just dissappear into unknown destination.
        fqye 6y ago
        I don't agree with you. That kind of camps should be called prisons or something else. Now when people talk about concentration camps, they mostly refer to the camps of Nazi's or the US's for Japanese Americans during WWII. I mean that is the most insidious side of the concentration camp accusation against China. Reliable source means established entities like media or research institution that verify what they get. I would name New Yorker as an example, which manages to maintain very high standard of professionalism.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Iraq invasion was driven by faulty intelligence gathered in secret by a spy organization. No, it was driven by politically motivated lies that the governments knew were fabrications. It wasn't intelligence driving policy, but preconceived policy driving intelligence to support the arguments that were already decided. And this was fairly evident and evidence for it fairly widely reported, though also widely of ignored, during the drive to war. The Uighurs camps situation doesn't appear the same, but of course it's abstractly possible that the lies are just better covered and laundered through external organizations. But I don't think that's the Occam's Razor answer.

Because history told us that public consensus and official conclusion could be lies. Remember the reason that the US invaded Iraq?

by fqye 6y ago

Because history told us that public consensus and official conclusion could be lies. Remember the reason that the US invaded Iraq?

warbaker 6y ago

Not sure how you can equate these two. Iraq invasion was driven by faulty intelligence gathered in secret by a spy organization. Here, we have millions of eye witnesses and tons of corroborating evidence.

fqye 6y ago
> Here, we have millions of eye witnesses and tons of corroborating evidence. The fact that this report is up to questioning shows that it isn't true. If you read this report thoroughly, you can find out it just shows there are this sort of buildings in Xinjiang but no logic or proof that they are concentration camps and there is no evidence at least in the report that the buildings are in use.
- grugagag 6y ago
  You’re in denial. Your country is doing this, theres incontestable evidence already. At least take in the facts and say you don’t care or that it’s your country’s business what they do internally but keeping on denying it doesn’t do anything at this point. The cat’s out of the bag already!
  - fqye 6y ago
    There are lots of accusations against China's Xinjiang practice. They are all mixed together unintentionally or intentionally to mud the water. The accusation of concentration camp is exaggerated and there is no credible hard evidence. This report is highly questionable. That is my opinion and what we are debating now. Human right issues in Xinjiang? Yes. I am not questioning that.
    - ghostwriter 6y ago
      what would be a "credible hard evidence" for you?
      - grugagag 6y ago
        China wouldn’t allow that kind of evidence: direct footage of people being psychologically and even physically tortured, proof of organ harvesting, etc. That’s like evidence that is very hard to obtain having how tight a grip China has, but there are leaks from time to time. Once again if China had nothing to hide and reporting was allowed we wouldn’t be having this conversation
      - fqye 6y ago
        images or videos of families confined in a camp, children, women and old men / women from reliable source. When we talk about concentration camp, it is always about large number of families.
        ghostwriter 6y ago
        Who/what would be a "reliable source" for you? Also, a concentration camp is not defined in terms of families/women/children confined in it, there were many concentration camps in history that captured individual members of families, who were not ideologically aligned with a totalitarian regime of that time and place, the whole soviet Gulag system was built on secrecy and minimal exposure to public, when individual members of your family might not get back home from a grocery store one day and just dissappear into unknown destination.
        fqye 6y ago
        I don't agree with you. That kind of camps should be called prisons or something else. Now when people talk about concentration camps, they mostly refer to the camps of Nazi's or the US's for Japanese Americans during WWII. I mean that is the most insidious side of the concentration camp accusation against China. Reliable source means established entities like media or research institution that verify what they get. I would name New Yorker as an example, which manages to maintain very high standard of professionalism.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Iraq invasion was driven by faulty intelligence gathered in secret by a spy organization. No, it was driven by politically motivated lies that the governments knew were fabrications. It wasn't intelligence driving policy, but preconceived policy driving intelligence to support the arguments that were already decided. And this was fairly evident and evidence for it fairly widely reported, though also widely of ignored, during the drive to war. The Uighurs camps situation doesn't appear the same, but of course it's abstractly possible that the lies are just better covered and laundered through external organizations. But I don't think that's the Occam's Razor answer.