The US tried to foment division in China by funding and organizing religious extremist terrorist cells in Xinjiang, and once those efforts failed, it concocted and promoted a genocide narrative. Antony Blinken is still pushing this slop.
We see here for example the evolution of public opinion in regards to China. In 2019, the ‘Uyghur genocide’ was broken by the media (Buzzfeed, of all outlets). In this story, we saw the machine I described up until now move in real time. Suddenly, newspapers, TV, websites were all flooded with stories about the ‘genocide’, all day, every day. People whom we’d never heard of before were brought in as experts — Adrian Zenz, to name just one; a man who does not even speak a word of Chinese.
Organizations were suddenly becoming very active and important. The World Uyghur Congress, a very serious-sounding NGO, is actually an NED Front operating out of Germany […]. From their official website, they declare themselves to be the sole legitimate representative of all Uyghurs — presumably not having asked Uyghurs in Xinjiang what they thought about that.
The WUC also has ties to the Grey Wolves, a fascist paramilitary group in Turkey, through the father of their founder, Isa Yusuf Alptekin.
Documents came out from NGOs to further legitimize the media reporting. This is how a report from the very professional-sounding China Human Rights Defenders (CHRD) came to exist. They claimed ‘up to 1.3 million’ Uyghurs were imprisoned in camps. What they didn’t say was how they got this number: they interviewed a total of 10 people from rural Xinjiang and asked them to estimate how many people might have been taken away. They then extrapolated the guesstimates they got and arrived at the 1.3 million figure.
Sanctions were enacted against China — Xinjiang cotton for example had trouble finding buyers after Western companies were pressured into boycotting it. Instead of helping fight against the purported genocide, this act actually made life more difficult for the people of Xinjiang who depend on this trade for their livelihood (as we all do depend on our skills to make a livelihood).
Any attempt China made to defend itself was met with more suspicion. They invited a UN delegation which was blocked by the US. The delegation eventually made it there, but three years later. The Arab League also visited Xinjiang and actually commended China on their policies — aimed at reducing terrorism through education and social integration, not through bombing like we tend to do in the West.
Lot of link, none of it seems to disprove the report UN released, most seems to claim that US use this issue as their advantage, and one even justify it with the same universally panned excuse US used to invade the middle east.
I don’t know how someone can confuse internationally illegal invasions of sovereign nations on the other side of the world which resulted in the deaths of over a million people with a domestic terrorism intervention that ended the deaths being caused by terrorist knifing sprees, bombings, and vehicular manslaughters. You’ve really got your head up your ass.
If you actually went to Xinjiang and asked the Uyghur people themselves (which you can actually do), I think you would find that they’re very happy for the terrorist attacks to have ended. You can visit their neighborhoods and their markets and their mosques and ask them yourself.
Also yet to refute UN’s claim.
Have you forgotten the start of this conversation, where the UN put this to issue to bed two years ago? The only people interested in this is the US propaganda machine. And they don’t actually give a rat’s ass about the Uyghur people any more than the Palestinian people. They only push this narrative to manufacture consent for their new Cold War with China.
If you actually went to Xinjiang and asked the Uyghur people themselves
When a country have such an abysmal score on human right and freedom of express, i’d take whatever people inside China said with a huge spoon of salt, as well as any country official that took the guided tour of the region. I’m not sure who will answer no when asked about whether they’re happy with no violence occuring, but i bet you can ask Israeli the same exact question before 7th oct and they will be happy that Palestinian are being kept in such way that violate the human right.
the UN put this to issue to bed two years ago
Refused to talk is put the issue to bed? Isn’t this like when US veto-ed all those ceasefire talk about Israel genocide?
So far it’s just deflecting and deflecting. Why not just straight away and tell me you don’t have any evidence to proof that China didn’t do what they got accused of? Might save us some time going back and forth.
I posted any number of links to information on what actually happened at the beginning of this conversation, but you’re not going to engage with any of them, because you’re not actually interested in what actually happened; you’re interested in winning a debate on the internet. But the two or three people who are still reading this thread don’t seem to be impressed with your unserious line of argument.
The US tried to foment division in China by funding and organizing religious extremist terrorist cells in Xinjiang, and once those efforts failed, it concocted and promoted a genocide narrative. Antony Blinken is still pushing this slop.
.
The blueprint of regime change operations
Removed by mod
Lot of link, none of it seems to disprove the report UN released, most seems to claim that US use this issue as their advantage, and one even justify it with the same universally panned excuse US used to invade the middle east.
Seriously.
I don’t know how someone can confuse internationally illegal invasions of sovereign nations on the other side of the world which resulted in the deaths of over a million people with a domestic terrorism intervention that ended the deaths being caused by terrorist knifing sprees, bombings, and vehicular manslaughters. You’ve really got your head up your ass.
I’m pretty sure if the same thing happened to ethnic minority in the US for the same reason, you will be up in arm against it. But sure, you do you.
Also yet to refute UN’s claim.
If you actually went to Xinjiang and asked the Uyghur people themselves (which you can actually do), I think you would find that they’re very happy for the terrorist attacks to have ended. You can visit their neighborhoods and their markets and their mosques and ask them yourself.
Have you forgotten the start of this conversation, where the UN put this to issue to bed two years ago? The only people interested in this is the US propaganda machine. And they don’t actually give a rat’s ass about the Uyghur people any more than the Palestinian people. They only push this narrative to manufacture consent for their new Cold War with China.
When a country have such an abysmal score on human right and freedom of express, i’d take whatever people inside China said with a huge spoon of salt, as well as any country official that took the guided tour of the region. I’m not sure who will answer no when asked about whether they’re happy with no violence occuring, but i bet you can ask Israeli the same exact question before 7th oct and they will be happy that Palestinian are being kept in such way that violate the human right.
Refused to talk is put the issue to bed? Isn’t this like when US veto-ed all those ceasefire talk about Israel genocide?
Amnesty International is funded by Western capitalists and by Western imperialist states (which are themselves run by Western capitalists[1][2]), so it can shove its opinions on socialist, anti-imperialist states up its ass. It is part of the human rights concern troll industrial complex.
So far it’s just deflecting and deflecting. Why not just straight away and tell me you don’t have any evidence to proof that China didn’t do what they got accused of? Might save us some time going back and forth.
I posted any number of links to information on what actually happened at the beginning of this conversation, but you’re not going to engage with any of them, because you’re not actually interested in what actually happened; you’re interested in winning a debate on the internet. But the two or three people who are still reading this thread don’t seem to be impressed with your unserious line of argument.