• Lon TH@mastodon.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 years ago

    @yogthos @sizeoftheuniverse your lovely socialist China is not very bothered with human rights, especially for Uyguhrs. Russia did not invade Ukraine merely to prevent them jouning NATO (doesn’t match timeline either) Western support is not so much to weaken Russia, although by now that seems a bonus, but to protect a European independent country under attack. I see a number of flaws in your rant.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      your lovely socialist China is not very bothered with human rights, especially for Uyguhrs

      The millions of Uyghurs being supposedly imprisoned story is based on two highly dubious “studies.”. CHRD states that it interviewed dozens of ethnic Uyghurs in the course of its study, but their enormous estimate was ultimately based on interviews with exactly eight Uyghur individuals. Based on this absurdly small sample of research subjects in an area whose total population is 20 million, CHRD “extrapolated estimates” that “at least 10% of villagers […] are being detained in re-education detention camps, and 20% are being forced to attend day/evening re-education camps in the villages or townships, totaling 30% in both types of camps.” Furthermore, it doesn’t even make sense from logistics perspective. You’d need a detention city the size of San Francisco to detain one million Uighurs.

      Practically all the stories we see about China trace back to Adrian Zenz is a far right fundamentalist nutcase and not a reliable source for any sort of information. The fact that he’s the primary source for practically every article in western media demonstrates precisely what I’m talking about when I say that coverage is divorced from reality.

      Zenz is a born-again Christian who lectures at the European School of Culture and Theology. This anodyne-sounding campus is actually the German base of Columbia International University, a US-based evangelical Christian seminary which considers the “Bible to be the ultimate foundation and the final truth in every aspect of our lives,” and whose mission is to “educate people from a biblical worldview to impact the nations with the message of Christ.”

      Zenz’s work on China is inspired by this biblical worldview, as he recently explained in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. “I feel very clearly led by God to do this,” he said. “I can put it that way. I’m not afraid to say that. With Xinjiang, things really changed. It became like a mission, or a ministry.”.

      Along with his “mission” against China, heavenly guidance has apparently prompted Zenz to denounce homosexuality, gender equality, and the banning of physical punishment against children as threats to Christianity.

      Zenz outlined these views in a book he co-authored in 2012, titled Worthy to Escape: Why All Believers Will Not Be Raptured Before the Tribulation. In the tome, Zenz discussed the return of Jesus Christ, the coming wrath of God, and the rise of the Antichrist.

      The fact that this nutcase is being paraded as a credible researcher on the subject is absolutely surreal, and it’s clear that the methodology of his “research” doesn’t pass any kind of muster when examined closely.

      It’s also worth noting that there is a political angle around the narrative around Xinjiang. For example, here’s George Bush’s chief of staff openly saying that US wants to destabilize the region, and NED recently admitting to funding Uyghur separatism for the past 16 years on their own official Twitter page. An ex-CIA operative details US operations radicalizing and training terrorists in the region in this book. Here’s an excerpt:

      Throughout the 1990s, hundreds of Uyghurs were transported to Afghanistan by the CIA for training in guerrilla warfare by the mujahideen. When they returned to Xinjiang, they formed the East Turkistan Islamic Movement and came under Catli’s expert direction. Graham Fuller, CIA superspy, offered this explanation for radicalizing the Chinese Muslims:

      The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them [Muslims] against our adversaries worked marvellously well in Afghanistan and against the Red Army. The doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter Chinese influence in Central Asia.

      US has been stoking terrorism in the region while they’ve been running a propaganda campaign against China in the west.

      Finally, if you were really worried about human rights then you should probably be more worried about the fact that the US holds 20% of world’s prison population as slave labour.

      Russia did not invade Ukraine merely to prevent them jouning NATO (doesn’t match timeline either) Western support is not so much to weaken Russia, although by now that seems a bonus, but to protect a European independent country under attack. I see a number of flaws in your rant.

      The war is a result of tensions that were largely escalated by NATO, and plenty of experts in the west have been warning about this for many years now. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:

      https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/

      https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/

      50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:

      George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.

      Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"

      Academics, such as John Mearsheimer, gave talks explaining why NATO actions would ultimately lead to conflict this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

      These and many other voices were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.

      I see some flaws in your understanding of the subject you’re opining on.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          I think it’s absolute horseshit designed for gullible dimwits, as many NYT articles have been shown to be over the years. If you believe that NYT has some secret source inside the CPC, I have bridge to sell you.

          Why don’t we have a look at what leaders of Muslim countries who actually visited Xinjiang have to say https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/wjbxw/202208/t20220809_10737758.html

          If China was an actual threat to Muslims then all the Muslim majority countries wouldn’t be supporting China. I love how Americans, who’ve made massacring Muslims into a sport, see themselves as a champion of Muslim rights in China while ignoring what actual Muslims say. You really can’t make this shit up.

          • pingveno@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            2 years ago

            Ah yes, a Chinese government website. They couldn’t possibly have a biased angle. And you never actually addressed anything about the NYT article, just dismissed it outright as essentially a hoax.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 years ago

              Address the content of the article instead of using ad hominem. The article discusses the fact that Muslim majority nation leaders came to China, toured Xinjiang, and support China. These are verifiable facts. Meanwhile, your NYT article has no verifiable facts. That’s the difference. I find it depressing that I have to spell this out for you.

              • pingveno@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                2 years ago

                Address the content of the article instead of using ad hominem.

                It’s not an ad hominem attack. It’s completely justified to question how objective an account is when it’s literally propaganda. In this particular case, the envoys come from countries that need to play nice with China. They were likely given a highly limited tour. And even if they had expressed discomfort, would a CPC press release ever mention it?

                Meanwhile, your NYT article has no verifiable facts.

                They have been transparent about the general outline of who their source is, and why they do not want their identity revealed. Given that a source of that nature could be killed for that sort of leak, do you blame them?

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 years ago

                  Yes, it is an ad hominem attack. You’re discarding the source solely based on the fact that it comes from China. It literally states the fact that Muslim leaders toured Xinjiang and their comments about their trip. The envoys come from the vast majority of Muslim countries in the world.

                  They were likely given a highly limited tour. And even if they had expressed discomfort, would a CPC press release ever mention it?

                  Ah yes, all these envoys are just too dumb to understand what’s happening, it takes a white man from a country that hunts Muslims for sport to tell them what’s good for the Muslims. You ever listen to yourself?

                  They have been transparent about the general outline of who their source is, and why they do not want their identity revealed. Given that a source of that nature could be killed for that sort of leak, do you blame them?

                  I have a bridge to sell you, please dm. The article is literally unverifiable in any way. This is the same level of proof as the US official who was claiming that there was evidence that Russian missiles hit Poland before that story was debunked.

                  You believe this article to be true solely because it fits your biases, which is precisely what this sort of propaganda hinges on. You’ve convinced yourself that China is some despotic regime without bothering to learn the first thing about the country, and now you’ll uncritically accept any propaganda that confirms your biases.

                  • pingveno@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    2 years ago

                    Ah yes, all these envoys are just too dumb to understand what’s happening, it takes a white man from a country that hunts Muslims for sport to tell them what’s good for the Muslims.

                    I’m sure they know exactly what they’re doing, protecting their own country’s interests. I don’t for one moment think they would put the Uyghurs’ rights over the economic interests of their own country.

                    The article is literally unverifiable in any way.

                    So is yours, beyond “these people came to China”. Well where did they tour? Was the tour complete? Were they given unfettered access to Uyghurs that did not fear a reprisal? The article proves nothing. Meanwhile the New York Times has picked apart the document they were given. Are you saying that they are liars?