7 ms·

I don’t have any special insight, I’m just pointing out that Amnesty doesn’t have a sterling record in this regard. The story is definitely in the US’ favor ge

by xtian 5y ago

I don’t have any special insight, I’m just pointing out that Amnesty doesn’t have a sterling record in this regard. The story is definitely in the US’ favor geopolitically, though. Look up which countries have condemned China for human rights abuses in Xinjiang at the UN. I don’t think there are any Muslim-majority countries on that list. Compare it to the list of UN countries which have condemned the genocide of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar.

zepto 5y ago
Seems like you are implying that the story is false because it benefits the US.
- xtian 5y ago
  I’m implying that maybe given the US’ history in the Middle East, its claims about the treatment of Muslims should be taken with one or more grains of salt.
  - zepto 5y ago
    Ok - so you do think they are lies.
  - King-Aaron 5y ago
    Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      How do you tell without another clock when it is right, though? I think the best solution to this is find independent reporting that has no relationship to any western countries, which I am sure will find some atrocities, and not touch the broken clock at all.
- bingbong70 5y ago
  CIA has a long history of funding terrorists and attempting regime change operations around the world, China included. People that know the pattern can see the bullshit coming from a mile away. Why the US all of a sudden loves the Uyghur terrorists that it was bombing with impunity not too long ago... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m7id66fk9hY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m7id66fk9hY
  - zepto 5y ago
    The US was bombing Uighurs? That seems like total bullshit to me.
    - bingbong70 5y ago
      >U.S. targets Chinese Uighur militants as well as Taliban fighters in Afghanistan https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-targets-chinese-uighur-militants-well-taliban-fighters-afghanistan-n845876 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-targets-chinese-uighu... They were considered terrorists, then at some point during the Syrian regime change project, imported Uyghur fighters became useful allies to the US along with Al Nusra, Al Qaeda and ISIS. US is also currently rehabilitating an Al Qaeda militant's image to make him the 'Juan Guaido' of Syria... https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/abu-mohammad-al-jolani-interview-hayat-tahrir-al-sham-syria-al-qaeda/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/abu-mohammad-al-j...
      - zepto 5y ago
        > in Afghanistan I think this is the relevant phrase, no?
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        How is it relevant? They are Uyghurs, and this terrorist group does operate in China too. The fact that this year they stopped being terrorists according to the US does smell like bullshit. Certainly, the US didn't bomb them for their ethnicity. That doesn't make the statement factually incorrect, the flip-flopping there smells like bullshit and that's what GP was alluding to if we are reading the comment in good faith.
davesque 5y ago
Seems like apples and oranges. What does any country really have to lose by criticizing Myanmar? Not much. On the other hand, criticizing China comes at a cost because they're a powerful country. So countries are probably less willing to do it in general even if they're ideologically aligned with doing it.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  This is a good point. However, being allied with the US does not magically make the cost of criticizing China any lesser, and there are Western countries with a stronger reliance on the Chinese economy than many Muslim countries. So is the deciding factor really reliance, or is it rather US-alignment? Besides, there is quite a bit to gain by criticizing enemies of the US and excusing crimes from allies of the US, see for example Muslim countries recognizing Israel at the behest of the US state department, so why is it not the case here also? And the US too is a very powerful nation, even more powerful, yet many Muslim countries critiqued it. I think the truth here is a lot more complex. The contrast between the reporting by western and non-western sources here as well as the factual inaccuracies in reporting and willingness to exaggerate lead me to conclude that while not offending China is a big thing, another is that western reporting is likely exaggerated as happened before when geopolitics made it convenient.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > while not offending China is a big thing, another is that western reporting is likely exaggerated Why? If anything it seems likely that most negative reporting on China has been downplayed for years and is now only catching up now that Western governments are less interested in appeasement.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      What appeasement? Western governments were never interested in appeasing, only in profit. Now China is in the way. There are many countries were atrocities of similar scale are happening right now and that don't have much influence. That's the metric for a neutral amount of reporting, and China was over that since the 60s.
chitowneats 5y ago
Wow, this account is indefatigable in these threads. It's really something to behold.

by xtian 5y ago

zepto 5y ago

Seems like you are implying that the story is false because it benefits the US.

xtian 5y ago
I’m implying that maybe given the US’ history in the Middle East, its claims about the treatment of Muslims should be taken with one or more grains of salt.
- zepto 5y ago
  Ok - so you do think they are lies.
- King-Aaron 5y ago
  Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    How do you tell without another clock when it is right, though? I think the best solution to this is find independent reporting that has no relationship to any western countries, which I am sure will find some atrocities, and not touch the broken clock at all.
bingbong70 5y ago
CIA has a long history of funding terrorists and attempting regime change operations around the world, China included. People that know the pattern can see the bullshit coming from a mile away. Why the US all of a sudden loves the Uyghur terrorists that it was bombing with impunity not too long ago... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m7id66fk9hY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m7id66fk9hY
- zepto 5y ago
  The US was bombing Uighurs? That seems like total bullshit to me.
  - bingbong70 5y ago
    >U.S. targets Chinese Uighur militants as well as Taliban fighters in Afghanistan https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-targets-chinese-uighur-militants-well-taliban-fighters-afghanistan-n845876 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-targets-chinese-uighu... They were considered terrorists, then at some point during the Syrian regime change project, imported Uyghur fighters became useful allies to the US along with Al Nusra, Al Qaeda and ISIS. US is also currently rehabilitating an Al Qaeda militant's image to make him the 'Juan Guaido' of Syria... https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/abu-mohammad-al-jolani-interview-hayat-tahrir-al-sham-syria-al-qaeda/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/abu-mohammad-al-j...
    - zepto 5y ago
      > in Afghanistan I think this is the relevant phrase, no?
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        How is it relevant? They are Uyghurs, and this terrorist group does operate in China too. The fact that this year they stopped being terrorists according to the US does smell like bullshit. Certainly, the US didn't bomb them for their ethnicity. That doesn't make the statement factually incorrect, the flip-flopping there smells like bullshit and that's what GP was alluding to if we are reading the comment in good faith.

davesque 5y ago

Seems like apples and oranges. What does any country really have to lose by criticizing Myanmar? Not much. On the other hand, criticizing China comes at a cost because they're a powerful country. So countries are probably less willing to do it in general even if they're ideologically aligned with doing it.

sudosysgen 5y ago
This is a good point. However, being allied with the US does not magically make the cost of criticizing China any lesser, and there are Western countries with a stronger reliance on the Chinese economy than many Muslim countries. So is the deciding factor really reliance, or is it rather US-alignment? Besides, there is quite a bit to gain by criticizing enemies of the US and excusing crimes from allies of the US, see for example Muslim countries recognizing Israel at the behest of the US state department, so why is it not the case here also? And the US too is a very powerful nation, even more powerful, yet many Muslim countries critiqued it. I think the truth here is a lot more complex. The contrast between the reporting by western and non-western sources here as well as the factual inaccuracies in reporting and willingness to exaggerate lead me to conclude that while not offending China is a big thing, another is that western reporting is likely exaggerated as happened before when geopolitics made it convenient.
- zepto 5y ago
  > while not offending China is a big thing, another is that western reporting is likely exaggerated Why? If anything it seems likely that most negative reporting on China has been downplayed for years and is now only catching up now that Western governments are less interested in appeasement.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    What appeasement? Western governments were never interested in appeasing, only in profit. Now China is in the way. There are many countries were atrocities of similar scale are happening right now and that don't have much influence. That's the metric for a neutral amount of reporting, and China was over that since the 60s.

chitowneats 5y ago

Wow, this account is indefatigable in these threads. It's really something to behold.