3 ms·

Don’t call people liars without doing proper research. What I said is 100% factually correct. The State Department’s Office of the Legal Advisor, contrary to P

Don’t call people liars without doing proper research. What I said is 100% factually correct. The State Department’s Office of the Legal Advisor, contrary to Pompeo’s statements, stated that there was insufficient evidence to prove genocide. Yes, the Trump and Biden administrations declared genocide. I trust the actual lawyers more. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-us-pompeo-blinken/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-...

tomrod 5y ago
> Don’t call people liars without doing proper research. Agreed! > What I said is 100% factually correct. Which is why it is stays within the realm of negligently misleading. Stated policy, based on the facts of the situation (versus legal opinion) of the US is, for administrations across a massive political divide, that China is committing genocide against the Uyghur people. Note your own article, which clearly shows that the legal office's position is tentative, says "The cautious conclusions of State Department lawyers do not constitute a judgment that genocide did not occur in Xinjiang but reflects the difficulties of proving genocide, which involves the destruction “in whole or in part” of a group of people based on their national, religious, racial, or ethnic identity, in a court of law." So we have: (1) sufficient intelligence that widely different political administrations draw the conclusion that genocide is occurring; (2) legal opinion, which can be used to justify policies for the US State department, that "we would really like more evidence before drawing the conclusion of genocide." Ergo, your attempt to downgrade "genocide is occurring" to "well, it COULD be occurring, but really its probably not because we can't prove it sufficiently in a court of law because we lack direct evidence despite mountains of evidence existing because to say there IS sufficient evidence means the US has to cut ties a lot quicker with China than it is ready to do thus let us continue to perpetuate the opinion that this Uyghur thing is overblown" is insufficient.

tomrod 5y ago

> Don’t call people liars without doing proper research. Agreed! > What I said is 100% factually correct. Which is why it is stays within the realm of negligently misleading. Stated policy, based on the facts of the situation (versus legal opinion) of the US is, for administrations across a massive political divide, that China is committing genocide against the Uyghur people. Note your own article, which clearly shows that the legal office's position is tentative, says "The cautious conclusions of State Department lawyers do not constitute a judgment that genocide did not occur in Xinjiang but reflects the difficulties of proving genocide, which involves the destruction “in whole or in part” of a group of people based on their national, religious, racial, or ethnic identity, in a court of law." So we have: (1) sufficient intelligence that widely different political administrations draw the conclusion that genocide is occurring; (2) legal opinion, which can be used to justify policies for the US State department, that "we would really like more evidence before drawing the conclusion of genocide." Ergo, your attempt to downgrade "genocide is occurring" to "well, it COULD be occurring, but really its probably not because we can't prove it sufficiently in a court of law because we lack direct evidence despite mountains of evidence existing because to say there IS sufficient evidence means the US has to cut ties a lot quicker with China than it is ready to do thus let us continue to perpetuate the opinion that this Uyghur thing is overblown" is insufficient.