6 ms·

This is horrible. No doubt this is an allergic immune response to terrorism. The actions here on a different level than what's going on in Hong Kong, possibly b

This is horrible. No doubt this is an allergic immune response to terrorism. The actions here on a different level than what's going on in Hong Kong, possibly because of this: "In July 2009, riots broke out in Xinjiang in response to a violent dispute between Uyghur and Han Chinese workers in a factory and result in over 100 deaths. Following the riots, Uyghur radicals killed dozens of Chinese citizens in coordinated attacks from 2009 to 2016. These included the August 2009 syringe attacks, the 2011 bomb-and-knife attack in Hotan, the March 2014 knife attack in the Kunming railway station, the April 2014 bomb-and-knife attack in the Ürümqi railway station, and the May 2014 car-and-bomb attack in an Ürümqi street market. Several of the attacks were orchestrated by the Turkistan Islamic Party (formerly the East Turkestan Islamic Movement) which has been designated a terrorist organization by several countries including Russia, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States, in addition to the United Nations." No doubt the efficiency that makes China so effective at arresting the spread of covid also makes atrocities like the concentration camps occur which will no doubt affect many many innocent bystanders. It is questionable whether or not this over-reaction will be effective, but despite this we know that China conducts these atrocities with the goal to end the violence once and for all under any means necessary. The question is, is a successful quelling of all terrorism worth crossing the line? Keep in mind the United States likely killed and harmed much more innocent bystanders with its' own allergic immune response to 9/11. It just didn't happen on our soil. We've crossed the line in the past as well.

iaw 6y ago
> The question is, is a successful quelling of all terrorism worth crossing the line? > Keep in mind the United States likely killed and harmed much more innocent bystanders with its' own allergic immune response to 9/11. It just didn't happen on our soil. We've crossed the line in the past as well. Crossing the line while fighting terrorism was not an acceptable action by the USA but I think it's a false equivalency to compare it to forced internment, torture, and reeducation of an entire population. At least the USA pretended to be discerning about who they went after.
- nendroid 6y ago
  >Crossing the line while fighting terrorism was not an acceptable action by the USA but I think it's a false equivalency to compare it to forced internment, torture, and reeducation of an entire population. I think it's a fair comparison. The amount of innocent bystanders killed by the the US military will be much more than what happens in concentration camps. The difference is the wording. War sounds not as bad as re-education and concentration camps. This is because you're use to it. Change the word from war to slaughter, because that is what war is.. slaughter. It's not even an exaggeration... if you've ever seen a bomb or a bullet massacre a human being into a bloody mess, slaughter is a very appropriate word. When you change the word you'll realize that war and re-education live on relatively the same level of extremism. Perhaps war is even worse than re-education or concentration camps. The US slaughtered many soldiers and innocent bystanders in Iraq and afghanistan to end terrorism. The Chinese tortured and re-educated many people to end terrorism. Which is worse?
  - iaw 6y ago
    I'm still going to say indiscriminately imprisoning and torturing a group of people because of their ethnic background.
    - nendroid 6y ago
      The war on terror deliberately avoided slaughtering white people and american citizens. The slaughtering was kept exclusively to people with middle eastern backgrounds. It's the same.
      - selimthegrim 6y ago
        Not true, there was a white British woman in Syria whose child by her white British ex was killed as well
        lerptime 6y ago
        These were very very rare. The US would justify sending a cruise missile into the middle east to kill one target that MAY accidentally harm bystanders but they would never conduct such action on American soil to destroy a terrorist cell that MAY harm american citizens. Extreme precautions were taken to make sure that all killings involved middle easterners. Were the precautions perfect? No. But obviously the killings were kept exclusive to a race.
gentleman11 6y ago
Terrorism is the practice of terrorizing mass populations through use of force in the hopes of promoting an ideological agenda. What the Chinese state is doing right now, that sounds a lot like terrorism on an epically larger scale, doesn’t it?
- nendroid 6y ago
  Terrorism is more than that. Terrorism is the use of violence, harm and killings to promote an ideological agenda. You're 100% percent correct. What China is doing fits the definition of "terrorism." My question is: Is is using terrorism itself as a means to an end to end terrorism worth it? Keep in mind that the US reaction to 9/11 can in itself be defined as terrorism for what it did to the other countries. War is a form of terrorism. Perhaps it is much worse than terrorism as terrorism uses small acts of violence to produce a big effect while in war the big effect is the violence itself. My own personal reaction to what happened with the US is that the war definitely went on for too long and the extension to Iraq was unnecessary. But whether a war was needed in the first place is something I'm unsure about. Imagine you were there on the day of 9/11. How could you not go to war? The American sentiment was the same at the time... it had to be done. What other course of action is there to take? What was going on through the minds of the Chinese everytime they saw slaughter after slaughter occur by terrorism on their soil? How could you not? What other course of action is there to take? This is a serious question. What in your mind should have been done instead?
  - Supermancho 6y ago
    > How could you not go to war? The American sentiment was the same at the time Respectfully, I disagree with the premise and the assertion. Everyone I know was confused about "going to war with Iraq" (again) which will always be at odds with responding to 9/11.
    - nerdtime 6y ago
      There is no disagreement here. Most people didn't agree with the Iraq war. He never said that his statement referred to the Iraq war. Given the context, he's likely more talking about the immediate response following 9/11. Military action was highly supported following the events of 9/11. There was so much support, in fact, that the president now has the power to send troops to any part of the world without declaring war
DevKoala 6y ago
Are you justifying China for eradicating a whole culture and its people due to some extremist attacks? The number of “missing” Uighurs is over a million.
- nendroid 6y ago
  >Are you justifying China for eradicating a whole culture and its people due to some extremist attacks? The US tried to justify over a decade of slaughter of terrorists and innocent bystanders abroad as a reaction to one terror attack on US soil. Don't try to play word games here. None of this is actually justified. All countries are guilty of crimes. The question I am posing people to consider is this: If several 9/11's happened on american soil. Buildings toppled, hundreds slaughtered by terrorism in multiple events with no end in sight and we find that the origin of these attacks rather than being instigated by one man from abroad is instigated by parts of a cultural community within US soil. What is the action that should be taken here to completely shut down this problem once and for all? Not a rhetorical question. I want some serious answers, but at the same time I also know that there is likely no solid answer and every action taken has a compromise. Also keep in mind this is not a justification of ANY chinese action. None of it is justified.
  - DevKoala 6y ago
    9/11 was Al Qaeda from Pakistán. The USA didn’t have a war with Pakistan over a radical terrorist group.
    - lerptime 6y ago
      Is Chinas' reaction also not a response to terrorism? Also by war he likely doesn't mean "official" declaration of war by the vocal cords of the US president. He likely means a more physical form of war by means using soldiers, bullets and bombs to conduct mass slaughter. That kind of war.
      - DevKoala 6y ago
        Killing millions of people is not a proper response to and isolated terrorist act. Moreover you are trying to justify the suffering of people by using some hypothetical scenario that hasn’t occurred.
jancsika 6y ago
> The question is, is a successful quelling of all terrorism worth crossing the line? Wow, the balls on that question. And please tell me your imagined design to "quell all terrorism" uses a blockchain. If so, do tell-- really, no detail is too small.
- lerptime 6y ago
  >Wow, the balls on that question. >And please tell me your imagined design to "quell all terrorism" uses a blockchain. If so, do tell-- really, no detail is too small. You got big balls too. The Terrorism he talks about involves actual human harm and the mass slaughter of hundreds of people in China. And here you are trivializing what he's talking about into an insensitive block chain insult. Might as well just call him a "nerd." I'd say your balls are 100x bigger than his.
  - jancsika 6y ago
    > The Terrorism he talks about involves actual human harm and the mass slaughter of hundreds of people in China. The OP's imagined, unspecified design to "quell all terrorism" necessarily rationalizes the actual harm that a primary source specified and had photographed in this article. Digressing from actual harm of a religious minority being sent to "re-education camps" to instead discuss a utopian thought experiment is morally unserious at best. It is, however, insensitive to bring block chain zealouts into this. I apologize for that.
    - nendroid 6y ago
      Wow the balls on this reply. And the lies. When did the op post about a utopian thought experiment? Never. That paragraph is an outright lie. Op poses a question to help the reader view the action from a more empathic perspective. The goal is to quell all terrorism in the same sense as to prevent all future mass killings. This is the action any country will take. The utopian thing comes from your misguided thought process. Rather what is being expressed here is an attempt to convey understanding that china's actions are a survival response to end slaughter and terrorism not an attempt to create a utopia. It is a reflection of your own insensitivity that you those words didn't trigger empathy but rather all you saw was a "utopian thought experiment". To top it off you made a joke about block chain then tried to hide your true nature with a feigned apology. It's clear you don't give a shit either way. No need to apologize for being insensitive and lacking empathy. You are what you are.
nicoburns 6y ago
What makes you think such actions are likely to quell terrorism. If anything I would think that this would radicalise the targeted population. The US response to 9/11 was stupid for exactly the same reasons.
- lerptime 6y ago
  I think such actions are done for the purpose of quelling terrorism. I think whether or not those actions will succeed is highly highly questionable. I also agree with you that radicalization is very possible. That is not to say that as atrocious as these actions are, that they can't be successful. There are cases in history where the US has successfully assimilated a different culture. Basically the entire native american population has more or less been assimilated into US culture with some small vestiges of the old ways remaining. I also agree with you that the US response is stupid for exactly the same reasons. However it is only stupid in retrospect. Bush sent troops into the middle east with the majority support of the American people. He lost that support later or aka the people regretted their emotional response in retrospect. It is highly likely that if such terrorism attacks occurred on US soil again our reaction would be no different. Immediate armed response and only wisdom in retrospect. Like the immediate negative response to my post, people react emotionally to situations. They never try to analyze the situation which is always much more complex than it actually appears.
bleepblorp 6y ago
> This is horrible. No doubt this is an allergic immune response to terrorism. That was the start of Chinese persecution of the Uyghurs, but the current leadership in China has adopted a broad policy of persecuting racial minorities. I'm not sure what their ultimate motivations are but they are targeting many, if not most, of China's non-Han ethnic groups without regard to whether they pose a terrorism risk or not.
- nerdtime 6y ago
  Curious, yeah this is interesting. The powers gained to quell the terrorism seem to be getting used to fulfill ulterior motives, not to different from the presidential powers gained after 9/11. Seems to be a common phenomenon. Do you have a source where I can start reading more about this stuff?
  - bleepblorp 6y ago
    Here's a few reasonably recent articles: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/21/world/asia/china-islam-crackdown.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/21/world/asia/china-islam-cr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Inner_Mongolia_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Inner_Mongolia_protests https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/30/chinese-communist-party-han-baby-boom-sterilization-ethnic-minorities/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/30/chinese-communist-party... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/06/chairman-xi-seeks-only-to-purge-and-subjugate-that-is-his-weakness https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/06/chairman-xi-se...
- dirtyid 6y ago
  >targeting many, if not most Not really. Barely a handful out of 54 minority groups that accounts for ~2% of the population. Most are left alone because most of minorities are already sinicized and "compatible" with broader Chinese society. > ultimate motivations This is really simple confluence of two major policy changes. 1. New minority policy, no more minority privileges like family planning exemptions from 2 child policy. Particular focus on mandarin fluency to integrate into broader society. Uyghur, Tibet, Mongolia etc, this is important because 99% of China operates on Mandarin, those who aren't fluent gets left behind. Above minority populations also have large rural populations whose lifestyles (agrarian, herding etc) are being phased out due to new land use policies regarding agriculture (food security). Which means urbanization, so there's also a lot of rural-urban labour transfer programs to up train people, i.e. the entire vocational training west portray as slave labour has been regular program in many provinces for at least 10 years for millions of rural Han. 2. New religion policy, rather _A_ religion policy. There simply was never a proper framework for regulating religion post CCP, leading to all sorts of drama. Not just in terms of prosecution, but illegal temples and other unregulated schemes. Lot's of tomfoolery in explosive growth of Chinese buddhism. Essentially, regulate religion, religion must have Chinese characteristics and conform to socialism. Not new policy, always relevant. 3. Groups that participate in 3 evils, separatism, terrorism, religious extremism get stomped: Uyghurs, Tibetans, HK, Taiwan when that comes around. Basically, stop 3 evils, spread mandarin, control religion, vocational training for ultimate development goal: urbanization and better rural land use. This is inevitable byproduct of Chinese population size + land constraints. Mix and match interventions, if you're a very religious, rural Uyghur who speaks no mandarin and have no employable skills, you get everything. If you're a Tibetan herder, you get some mandarin lessons and vocation training. If you're a Mongolia urbnite, make sure your kids know mandarin.

iaw 6y ago

> The question is, is a successful quelling of all terrorism worth crossing the line? > Keep in mind the United States likely killed and harmed much more innocent bystanders with its' own allergic immune response to 9/11. It just didn't happen on our soil. We've crossed the line in the past as well. Crossing the line while fighting terrorism was not an acceptable action by the USA but I think it's a false equivalency to compare it to forced internment, torture, and reeducation of an entire population. At least the USA pretended to be discerning about who they went after.

nendroid 6y ago
>Crossing the line while fighting terrorism was not an acceptable action by the USA but I think it's a false equivalency to compare it to forced internment, torture, and reeducation of an entire population. I think it's a fair comparison. The amount of innocent bystanders killed by the the US military will be much more than what happens in concentration camps. The difference is the wording. War sounds not as bad as re-education and concentration camps. This is because you're use to it. Change the word from war to slaughter, because that is what war is.. slaughter. It's not even an exaggeration... if you've ever seen a bomb or a bullet massacre a human being into a bloody mess, slaughter is a very appropriate word. When you change the word you'll realize that war and re-education live on relatively the same level of extremism. Perhaps war is even worse than re-education or concentration camps. The US slaughtered many soldiers and innocent bystanders in Iraq and afghanistan to end terrorism. The Chinese tortured and re-educated many people to end terrorism. Which is worse?
- iaw 6y ago
  I'm still going to say indiscriminately imprisoning and torturing a group of people because of their ethnic background.
  - nendroid 6y ago
    The war on terror deliberately avoided slaughtering white people and american citizens. The slaughtering was kept exclusively to people with middle eastern backgrounds. It's the same.
    - selimthegrim 6y ago
      Not true, there was a white British woman in Syria whose child by her white British ex was killed as well
      - lerptime 6y ago
        These were very very rare. The US would justify sending a cruise missile into the middle east to kill one target that MAY accidentally harm bystanders but they would never conduct such action on American soil to destroy a terrorist cell that MAY harm american citizens. Extreme precautions were taken to make sure that all killings involved middle easterners. Were the precautions perfect? No. But obviously the killings were kept exclusive to a race.

gentleman11 6y ago

Terrorism is the practice of terrorizing mass populations through use of force in the hopes of promoting an ideological agenda. What the Chinese state is doing right now, that sounds a lot like terrorism on an epically larger scale, doesn’t it?

nendroid 6y ago
Terrorism is more than that. Terrorism is the use of violence, harm and killings to promote an ideological agenda. You're 100% percent correct. What China is doing fits the definition of "terrorism." My question is: Is is using terrorism itself as a means to an end to end terrorism worth it? Keep in mind that the US reaction to 9/11 can in itself be defined as terrorism for what it did to the other countries. War is a form of terrorism. Perhaps it is much worse than terrorism as terrorism uses small acts of violence to produce a big effect while in war the big effect is the violence itself. My own personal reaction to what happened with the US is that the war definitely went on for too long and the extension to Iraq was unnecessary. But whether a war was needed in the first place is something I'm unsure about. Imagine you were there on the day of 9/11. How could you not go to war? The American sentiment was the same at the time... it had to be done. What other course of action is there to take? What was going on through the minds of the Chinese everytime they saw slaughter after slaughter occur by terrorism on their soil? How could you not? What other course of action is there to take? This is a serious question. What in your mind should have been done instead?
- Supermancho 6y ago
  > How could you not go to war? The American sentiment was the same at the time Respectfully, I disagree with the premise and the assertion. Everyone I know was confused about "going to war with Iraq" (again) which will always be at odds with responding to 9/11.
  - nerdtime 6y ago
    There is no disagreement here. Most people didn't agree with the Iraq war. He never said that his statement referred to the Iraq war. Given the context, he's likely more talking about the immediate response following 9/11. Military action was highly supported following the events of 9/11. There was so much support, in fact, that the president now has the power to send troops to any part of the world without declaring war

DevKoala 6y ago

Are you justifying China for eradicating a whole culture and its people due to some extremist attacks? The number of “missing” Uighurs is over a million.

nendroid 6y ago
>Are you justifying China for eradicating a whole culture and its people due to some extremist attacks? The US tried to justify over a decade of slaughter of terrorists and innocent bystanders abroad as a reaction to one terror attack on US soil. Don't try to play word games here. None of this is actually justified. All countries are guilty of crimes. The question I am posing people to consider is this: If several 9/11's happened on american soil. Buildings toppled, hundreds slaughtered by terrorism in multiple events with no end in sight and we find that the origin of these attacks rather than being instigated by one man from abroad is instigated by parts of a cultural community within US soil. What is the action that should be taken here to completely shut down this problem once and for all? Not a rhetorical question. I want some serious answers, but at the same time I also know that there is likely no solid answer and every action taken has a compromise. Also keep in mind this is not a justification of ANY chinese action. None of it is justified.
- DevKoala 6y ago
  9/11 was Al Qaeda from Pakistán. The USA didn’t have a war with Pakistan over a radical terrorist group.
  - lerptime 6y ago
    Is Chinas' reaction also not a response to terrorism? Also by war he likely doesn't mean "official" declaration of war by the vocal cords of the US president. He likely means a more physical form of war by means using soldiers, bullets and bombs to conduct mass slaughter. That kind of war.
    - DevKoala 6y ago
      Killing millions of people is not a proper response to and isolated terrorist act. Moreover you are trying to justify the suffering of people by using some hypothetical scenario that hasn’t occurred.

jancsika 6y ago

> The question is, is a successful quelling of all terrorism worth crossing the line? Wow, the balls on that question. And please tell me your imagined design to "quell all terrorism" uses a blockchain. If so, do tell-- really, no detail is too small.

lerptime 6y ago
>Wow, the balls on that question. >And please tell me your imagined design to "quell all terrorism" uses a blockchain. If so, do tell-- really, no detail is too small. You got big balls too. The Terrorism he talks about involves actual human harm and the mass slaughter of hundreds of people in China. And here you are trivializing what he's talking about into an insensitive block chain insult. Might as well just call him a "nerd." I'd say your balls are 100x bigger than his.
- jancsika 6y ago
  > The Terrorism he talks about involves actual human harm and the mass slaughter of hundreds of people in China. The OP's imagined, unspecified design to "quell all terrorism" necessarily rationalizes the actual harm that a primary source specified and had photographed in this article. Digressing from actual harm of a religious minority being sent to "re-education camps" to instead discuss a utopian thought experiment is morally unserious at best. It is, however, insensitive to bring block chain zealouts into this. I apologize for that.
  - nendroid 6y ago
    Wow the balls on this reply. And the lies. When did the op post about a utopian thought experiment? Never. That paragraph is an outright lie. Op poses a question to help the reader view the action from a more empathic perspective. The goal is to quell all terrorism in the same sense as to prevent all future mass killings. This is the action any country will take. The utopian thing comes from your misguided thought process. Rather what is being expressed here is an attempt to convey understanding that china's actions are a survival response to end slaughter and terrorism not an attempt to create a utopia. It is a reflection of your own insensitivity that you those words didn't trigger empathy but rather all you saw was a "utopian thought experiment". To top it off you made a joke about block chain then tried to hide your true nature with a feigned apology. It's clear you don't give a shit either way. No need to apologize for being insensitive and lacking empathy. You are what you are.

nicoburns 6y ago

What makes you think such actions are likely to quell terrorism. If anything I would think that this would radicalise the targeted population. The US response to 9/11 was stupid for exactly the same reasons.

lerptime 6y ago
I think such actions are done for the purpose of quelling terrorism. I think whether or not those actions will succeed is highly highly questionable. I also agree with you that radicalization is very possible. That is not to say that as atrocious as these actions are, that they can't be successful. There are cases in history where the US has successfully assimilated a different culture. Basically the entire native american population has more or less been assimilated into US culture with some small vestiges of the old ways remaining. I also agree with you that the US response is stupid for exactly the same reasons. However it is only stupid in retrospect. Bush sent troops into the middle east with the majority support of the American people. He lost that support later or aka the people regretted their emotional response in retrospect. It is highly likely that if such terrorism attacks occurred on US soil again our reaction would be no different. Immediate armed response and only wisdom in retrospect. Like the immediate negative response to my post, people react emotionally to situations. They never try to analyze the situation which is always much more complex than it actually appears.

bleepblorp 6y ago

> This is horrible. No doubt this is an allergic immune response to terrorism. That was the start of Chinese persecution of the Uyghurs, but the current leadership in China has adopted a broad policy of persecuting racial minorities. I'm not sure what their ultimate motivations are but they are targeting many, if not most, of China's non-Han ethnic groups without regard to whether they pose a terrorism risk or not.

nerdtime 6y ago
Curious, yeah this is interesting. The powers gained to quell the terrorism seem to be getting used to fulfill ulterior motives, not to different from the presidential powers gained after 9/11. Seems to be a common phenomenon. Do you have a source where I can start reading more about this stuff?
- bleepblorp 6y ago
  Here's a few reasonably recent articles: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/21/world/asia/china-islam-crackdown.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/21/world/asia/china-islam-cr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Inner_Mongolia_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Inner_Mongolia_protests https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/30/chinese-communist-party-han-baby-boom-sterilization-ethnic-minorities/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/30/chinese-communist-party... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/06/chairman-xi-seeks-only-to-purge-and-subjugate-that-is-his-weakness https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/06/chairman-xi-se...
dirtyid 6y ago
>targeting many, if not most Not really. Barely a handful out of 54 minority groups that accounts for ~2% of the population. Most are left alone because most of minorities are already sinicized and "compatible" with broader Chinese society. > ultimate motivations This is really simple confluence of two major policy changes. 1. New minority policy, no more minority privileges like family planning exemptions from 2 child policy. Particular focus on mandarin fluency to integrate into broader society. Uyghur, Tibet, Mongolia etc, this is important because 99% of China operates on Mandarin, those who aren't fluent gets left behind. Above minority populations also have large rural populations whose lifestyles (agrarian, herding etc) are being phased out due to new land use policies regarding agriculture (food security). Which means urbanization, so there's also a lot of rural-urban labour transfer programs to up train people, i.e. the entire vocational training west portray as slave labour has been regular program in many provinces for at least 10 years for millions of rural Han. 2. New religion policy, rather _A_ religion policy. There simply was never a proper framework for regulating religion post CCP, leading to all sorts of drama. Not just in terms of prosecution, but illegal temples and other unregulated schemes. Lot's of tomfoolery in explosive growth of Chinese buddhism. Essentially, regulate religion, religion must have Chinese characteristics and conform to socialism. Not new policy, always relevant. 3. Groups that participate in 3 evils, separatism, terrorism, religious extremism get stomped: Uyghurs, Tibetans, HK, Taiwan when that comes around. Basically, stop 3 evils, spread mandarin, control religion, vocational training for ultimate development goal: urbanization and better rural land use. This is inevitable byproduct of Chinese population size + land constraints. Mix and match interventions, if you're a very religious, rural Uyghur who speaks no mandarin and have no employable skills, you get everything. If you're a Tibetan herder, you get some mandarin lessons and vocation training. If you're a Mongolia urbnite, make sure your kids know mandarin.