5 ms·

There are plenty of reports that conflict with those coming out of the US media, and plenty of conflicts of interest (at the very least) in the sources of those

by xtian 5y ago

There are plenty of reports that conflict with those coming out of the US media, and plenty of conflicts of interest (at the very least) in the sources of those reports. What do you make of these two pieces of CCP propaganda? https://youtube.com/watch?v=AaitXSdjFP8 https://youtube.com/watch?v=AaitXSdjFP8 https://youtube.com/watch?v=4N385vKhXYQ https://youtube.com/watch?v=4N385vKhXYQ

zepto 5y ago
Do you not think the CCP has an interest in denying the claims? You talk as if only one side of this is politically motivated. Is that what you really think?
- xtian 5y ago
  Of course they do? I was being sarcastic about “CCP propaganda” but I guess you didn’t watch them so you didn’t get it. Where have I said that only one side has political interests?
  - zepto 5y ago
    > Where have I said that only one side has political interests? You haven’t, but you have repeatedly cited only one side’s political interests to further your argument that that side is lying.
    - xtian 5y ago
      Oh ok. Let me state China’s political interest: to not have their political sovereignty violated and be carved up by Western powers.
      - joyeuse6701 5y ago
        I 100% believe the U.S.G. would use the Uighur situation as a reason for war, despite other more morally lacking reasons (power). I also 100% believe that the CCP would do something to the Uighur's worth starting a war over. The CCP is a military dictatorship, the people running the show aren't elected officials and the people, Uighur and otherwise aren't free to speak their minds or learn except for what the party allows. This setup has never resulted in a good outcome long term. Ever. Let's not be naive, but instead reflect on the preconditions necessary for the abuse of power and recognize the CCP has met all of them in this situation.
      - zepto 5y ago
        Ah, so you believe China has no geopolitical aims of its own other than defending itself from being dismantled. This explains the black and white narrative of the US as aggressor and China as victim that you tell.
        xtian 5y ago
        You can honestly look at this map of US military bases surrounding China and say it’s unreasonable to frame the US as the aggressor? https://www.wsws.org/asset/614e577a-e542-46f7-b838-fbf522495dfB/image.jpg https://www.wsws.org/asset/614e577a-e542-46f7-b838-fbf522495...
        zepto 5y ago
        Yes, the US has military bases all over the world. Does that mean it is the ‘aggressor’ in a given situation? Clearly not. There are many instances of countries active aggressively against their neighbors. If the US gets involved, the presence of its bases doesn’t suddenly make it ‘the aggressor’.
        Dah00n 5y ago
        That is beside the point. The US is acting aggressively already as it tries to build bases and send fleets around any country it dislikes for whatever reason. It's not if the US gets involved. It already is involved. To not be aggressive or involved the bases should be closed down and no planes or ships should constantly probe Chinese borders. The US nhas no reason to be there except to get involved. It's exactly the same script as the US used in the cold war with the USSR and you know it. China does a lot of wrong but it is not the one being aggressive to the extreme. If China did what the US is doing we would have WW3 instantly.
        zepto 5y ago
        As pointed out elsewhere China is making aggressive moves towards Taiwan, a strategic ally of the US. It doesn’t seem credible to suggest that if the US just closed its bases, China and others wouldn’t try to expand their own spheres of military influence. I’m not suggesting that the US is a benign power. Only that it is not ‘the aggressor’ in a world full of innocent victims who just want to be left alone. There are multiple aggressive powers all acting in their own interests, and China and the US are the most powerful of them.

by xtian 5y ago

zepto 5y ago

Do you not think the CCP has an interest in denying the claims? You talk as if only one side of this is politically motivated. Is that what you really think?

xtian 5y ago
Of course they do? I was being sarcastic about “CCP propaganda” but I guess you didn’t watch them so you didn’t get it. Where have I said that only one side has political interests?
- zepto 5y ago
  > Where have I said that only one side has political interests? You haven’t, but you have repeatedly cited only one side’s political interests to further your argument that that side is lying.
  - xtian 5y ago
    Oh ok. Let me state China’s political interest: to not have their political sovereignty violated and be carved up by Western powers.
    - joyeuse6701 5y ago
      I 100% believe the U.S.G. would use the Uighur situation as a reason for war, despite other more morally lacking reasons (power). I also 100% believe that the CCP would do something to the Uighur's worth starting a war over. The CCP is a military dictatorship, the people running the show aren't elected officials and the people, Uighur and otherwise aren't free to speak their minds or learn except for what the party allows. This setup has never resulted in a good outcome long term. Ever. Let's not be naive, but instead reflect on the preconditions necessary for the abuse of power and recognize the CCP has met all of them in this situation.
    - zepto 5y ago
      Ah, so you believe China has no geopolitical aims of its own other than defending itself from being dismantled. This explains the black and white narrative of the US as aggressor and China as victim that you tell.
      - xtian 5y ago
        You can honestly look at this map of US military bases surrounding China and say it’s unreasonable to frame the US as the aggressor? https://www.wsws.org/asset/614e577a-e542-46f7-b838-fbf522495dfB/image.jpg https://www.wsws.org/asset/614e577a-e542-46f7-b838-fbf522495...
        zepto 5y ago
        Yes, the US has military bases all over the world. Does that mean it is the ‘aggressor’ in a given situation? Clearly not. There are many instances of countries active aggressively against their neighbors. If the US gets involved, the presence of its bases doesn’t suddenly make it ‘the aggressor’.
        Dah00n 5y ago
        That is beside the point. The US is acting aggressively already as it tries to build bases and send fleets around any country it dislikes for whatever reason. It's not if the US gets involved. It already is involved. To not be aggressive or involved the bases should be closed down and no planes or ships should constantly probe Chinese borders. The US nhas no reason to be there except to get involved. It's exactly the same script as the US used in the cold war with the USSR and you know it. China does a lot of wrong but it is not the one being aggressive to the extreme. If China did what the US is doing we would have WW3 instantly.
        zepto 5y ago
        As pointed out elsewhere China is making aggressive moves towards Taiwan, a strategic ally of the US. It doesn’t seem credible to suggest that if the US just closed its bases, China and others wouldn’t try to expand their own spheres of military influence. I’m not suggesting that the US is a benign power. Only that it is not ‘the aggressor’ in a world full of innocent victims who just want to be left alone. There are multiple aggressive powers all acting in their own interests, and China and the US are the most powerful of them.