7 ms·

Presume all you've said is true, which, for various factious or groups of Uyghurs likely was true. That still doesn't establish it as the distinguishing factor

Presume all you've said is true, which, for various factious or groups of Uyghurs likely was true. That still doesn't establish it as the distinguishing factor as to why the US declared them as terrorist. I fought in the YPG in the Syrian Civil War, an ally of the USA. Guess what, there were those who looked 13,14,15 usually because the Syrian government or ISIS had incapacitated their parents somehow. Mostly they were way back as token guards at training outposts but I also saw some near the front. The YPG also had to ally with a bunch of nasty theocratic arab militias to survive, in fact, that's why the SDF/YPG just got largely wiped out because the consolidation of the rebels in Damascus resulted in their arab allies turning their back. (In fact, Wikipedia page says IS is opponent of Uyghur militia). And I won't even get into the fact that the YPG and PKK are ideologically and pragmatically incredibly similar, yet PKK is magically a terrorist and the YPG is a brave US ally, one gets the blame anytime a Kurdish person does something horrible against innocent people and one doesn't. As sister poster alludes, the US has never had an issue allying with "terrorists" when it suits their goals. Especially when fighting against USSR. So knowing that this isn't the distinguishing factor, can you point to any other present-day armed group in or of China that has credible potential for an armed political uprising that hasn't been declared a terrorist? There might be one, I just don't know who they are, but I am very interested to read about them. To me it looks like the difference is that they were a credible threat of violence against China, not that they have slaughtered innocent people which the USA and China has done as have many of US allies.

kdheiwns 9mo ago
I think by definition any group supporting an armed political uprising in a stable country is considered a terrorist group. Should we consider armed groups in America or Belgium to not be terrorists? And considering the Syrian civil war ended with a guy from Al Qaeda (famous terrorist group) becoming president and the country now having massacres under his watch, yeah, I think it's correct for groups that support armed uprising to be considered terrorist groups. Because they are. That armed uprising in Syria led to hundreds of thousands being killed, millions displaced, for what? A guy no better than the predecessor took his place, and he ruined countless lives to get there.
- mothballed 9mo ago
  OK so anyone fighting a stable tyrant country for political ends is a terrorist in your estimation. I think by some definition of "terrorist" you are correct. But that's different than what the US uses for listed terrorist organizations. And that's what I'm pointing out. The US is happy to support these groups when they're actually on board with eliminating tyrants. I think they publicly shit-talk China but low-key they are happy to list as terrorists any group that can credibly threaten them, because it buys them political points in dealing with China. I'm judging them with their value system in mind, which provides a better assessment of the motivations behind their actions than judging them with your value system in mind. That is, by the value system of the US government, if they actually support the overthrow of the government they will also not usually list as terrorists those who are tactically in a position to weaken the government in question, even though by your value system you might. And I don't agree with your assessment that even if it ends with another tyrant in power, it was for nothing. The Kurds had a slice of relative freedom for a decade. In their estimation it was worth the violence. Obviously I agree with that, otherwise I wouldn't have fought for them. I always knew there was a good chance it ends with everyone slaughtered and I saw my share of artillery and rounds come at me, so I'm not just speaking as a hypothetical on behalf of someone else. Sometimes it's better to be alive for a moment than a slave for a lifetime. (The Chechens, also came to a similar conclusion, with similar ends and a period of relative freedom between the two Chechen wars; I find them to be a less palatable example though I don't blame them for the general idea behind their actions).
  - kdheiwns 9mo ago
    The US also props up tyrants in South and Central America. Those people have killed countless and I would consider support of those groups acts of terrorism as well. The Uyghur and Chechen groups want to oppose strict Islamic law, and if you want to support those groups, you're free to go off to Afghanistan or the small pockets of territory ISIS sometimes controls so you can see how great and friendly they are for opposing the oppressive governments that opposed them. As bad as Saddam was, I don't think anyone enjoyed the time that ISIS dominated Iraq more than his reign. And I don't think anyone outside of extremists who just want to keep women as property support Uyghur militants who blow up buses.

kdheiwns 9mo ago

I think by definition any group supporting an armed political uprising in a stable country is considered a terrorist group. Should we consider armed groups in America or Belgium to not be terrorists? And considering the Syrian civil war ended with a guy from Al Qaeda (famous terrorist group) becoming president and the country now having massacres under his watch, yeah, I think it's correct for groups that support armed uprising to be considered terrorist groups. Because they are. That armed uprising in Syria led to hundreds of thousands being killed, millions displaced, for what? A guy no better than the predecessor took his place, and he ruined countless lives to get there.

mothballed 9mo ago
OK so anyone fighting a stable tyrant country for political ends is a terrorist in your estimation. I think by some definition of "terrorist" you are correct. But that's different than what the US uses for listed terrorist organizations. And that's what I'm pointing out. The US is happy to support these groups when they're actually on board with eliminating tyrants. I think they publicly shit-talk China but low-key they are happy to list as terrorists any group that can credibly threaten them, because it buys them political points in dealing with China. I'm judging them with their value system in mind, which provides a better assessment of the motivations behind their actions than judging them with your value system in mind. That is, by the value system of the US government, if they actually support the overthrow of the government they will also not usually list as terrorists those who are tactically in a position to weaken the government in question, even though by your value system you might. And I don't agree with your assessment that even if it ends with another tyrant in power, it was for nothing. The Kurds had a slice of relative freedom for a decade. In their estimation it was worth the violence. Obviously I agree with that, otherwise I wouldn't have fought for them. I always knew there was a good chance it ends with everyone slaughtered and I saw my share of artillery and rounds come at me, so I'm not just speaking as a hypothetical on behalf of someone else. Sometimes it's better to be alive for a moment than a slave for a lifetime. (The Chechens, also came to a similar conclusion, with similar ends and a period of relative freedom between the two Chechen wars; I find them to be a less palatable example though I don't blame them for the general idea behind their actions).
- kdheiwns 9mo ago
  The US also props up tyrants in South and Central America. Those people have killed countless and I would consider support of those groups acts of terrorism as well. The Uyghur and Chechen groups want to oppose strict Islamic law, and if you want to support those groups, you're free to go off to Afghanistan or the small pockets of territory ISIS sometimes controls so you can see how great and friendly they are for opposing the oppressive governments that opposed them. As bad as Saddam was, I don't think anyone enjoyed the time that ISIS dominated Iraq more than his reign. And I don't think anyone outside of extremists who just want to keep women as property support Uyghur militants who blow up buses.