China shuts down Uyghur detention camps - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15194338
ThirdTerm wrote:A Chinese whistleblower exposed the brutal tactics used by police and guards at re-education centres in Xinjiang. I cannot condemn what China has done to the Muslim community entirely as a 7/7 survivor. I was in London on the very day of the 2005 London bombings and stayed in the country throughout the summer afterwards. Muslims in general are die-hard conservatives who could be easily radicalized to commit terrorist acts. Their thoughts need to be controlled and deradicalized.


This is why the Uyghur narrative lacks so much credibility.

Jiang claims to have been a Chinese police officer in 2018. When Chinese police officers retire, they are required by law to give up their uniform and other identifying equipment. This is to reduce potential for corruption. Jiang is pictured here in the uniform of a Chinese police man.

Conclusion 1) Either he kept his own uniform, in violation of the law, and is corrupt - or he was dressed up in a replica uniform to help sell the narrative.

Second, Jiang has appeared in the news before.

Image

His testimony to the China Tribunal contradicts his testimony to CNN, and it contradicts his words in Sky News. Why? When is he lying?

Conclusion 2) Why should we consider him, or other witnesses, reliable, when they consistently get caught changing their stories?

Now that the camps are closed and these people have been released and are free in the country side, it should be eas[ier] to get hundreds and hundreds of corroborating accounts by these individuals. Will we see them?
#15194340
The Chinese defector declined to cooperate with the Muslim tribunal because of their hostility toward the former prison guard who may have abused their comrades, while he did not mince his words with CNN. The AP story is dubious because of these AP journalists' limited access to the region. They were accompanied by Chinese officers while travelling around Xinjiang and they only met with locals who claim that Xinjiang is a heaven on earth without any political repression. They even bothered to hold the dance festival to greet AP journalists. This local man named Dou at the dance festival is one of those collaborators hand-picked by the government.



Over grilled lamb and yogurt, we watched grinning Uyghurs dressed in traditional gowns dance and sing. Dou turns to me.

“See, we can’t have genocide here,” Dou said, gesturing to the performers. “We’re preserving their traditional culture.”
Last edited by ThirdTerm on 14 Oct 2021 16:02, edited 2 times in total.
#15194342
ThirdTerm wrote:The Chinese detector declined to cooperate with the Muslim tribunal because of their hostility toward the former prison guard who may have abused their comrades, while he did not mince his words with CNN.


The Uyghur Tribunal is not a Muslim tribunal, it's a bunch of British lawyers and professors and based in London.
#15194379
Fasces wrote:So unlawful killing and repression of hundreds of thousands in the name of counter terrorism is better than detention and education because it's done to... Foreigners? :eh:

I guess this is the natural outcome of repeating the tedious propaganda line "X is killing his own people" to justify various foreign invasions. You start to think that killing other people's people is fine. :lol:
#15194385
Rugoz wrote:Wtf is this shit? Do you ever fucking read?


Wtf was your point then?

All I said was that China's approach to repressing Uyghur's in the name of counter-terrorism and combatting reactionary Islamism was repressive, but preferable to the American approach of bombing them, their families, their jobs, and their nations.

I'm sure a better approach exists, but the Western narrative is not only poorly constructed and exaggerated (and is now falling apart entirely) but was constructed entirely to serve a nefarious purpose - 1) justifying the actions that led to more than a million dead in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen, at the hands of US forces and their proxies (and millions more displaced, not to mention the ripple effects of having an entire generation victim to foreign invasion and conflict) while 2) manufacturing consent for the next wave of imperialist atrocity by Western capital.

On the problem of "How do deal with radical Islamic terrorism", the US answer was to wage war, and the Chinese answer was to use big data analytics to identify at-risk populations, then invest in vocational training, language training, and political/social education in attempt to integrate these populations into the Chinese state.

I'm not going to sit here and defend cultural erasure: it was terrible when Spaniards, Canadians, and Americans did it to Native Americans, whatever their false remorse nowadays, and it is a terrible thing that China is doing in the name of cultural cohesion. It will lead to problems of alienation and is a loss of human heritage. But fuck me - between Option A and Option B, it is the more humane of the two, especially when one considers the advances made in...

1) the rights of women, the education of women, and woman's health in the region.
2) the economic advancement of the region (3x the GDPPC in a decade)
3) advancements in literacy (Xinjiang went from ranked last among Chinese provinces in 2008 to 14th in 2019, and above the Chinese national average)

Hell, it may even be a more humane alternative to the reservation hell the US has created that exists nowadays, purely in terms of material well-being.

But by being trained to hate this 'other' we avoid asking these hard questions about our own governments and their priorities, and can comfortably put aside our own problems - problems we could actually solve without violating the sovereignty of other people - by saying absolute tripe like "well at least we're not China".
#15194387
@Fasces, Rugoz never has a point. He just likes the sound of his own voice so everything he writes is barely understandable so he can't be accused of something. But really, America invading under the name of terrorism freedom and killing via bombing campaigns are actually something they do additionally compared to China. Guantanamo Bay was the 'reeducation centre' which is similar in this instance which then make you scratch your head when you think what went on there. Isn't there a saying about stones and glass houses?

Fun Fact:

Prisoners in Guantanamo Bay were called detainees because prisoners have rights, have to be charged and go to a court whereas detainees don't and you can do whatever to them. Like waterboarding and sensory deprivation. :hmm:
#15194388
B0ycey wrote:@Fasces,
Fun Fact:

Prisoners in Guantanamo Bay were called detainees because prisoners have rights, have to be charged and go to a court whereas detainees don't and you can do whatever to them. Like waterboarding and sensory deprivation. :hmm:


Guantanamo is a camp for a few houndred people... who were probably high-ranking Al Qaida members... whereas in East-Turkestan 1- 3 Million dissappeared behind bars.
#15194389
Sandzak wrote:Guantanamo is a camp for a few houndred people... who were probably high-ranking Al Qaida members... whereas in East-Turkestan 1- 3 Million dissappeared behind bars.


That number keeps magically getting higher with each passing month. :lol:

Sandzak wrote:who were probably high-ranking Al Qaida members


Way to give the US the benefit of the doubt.

Hell, 22 of them were even Uyghurs not affilitated with any significant terror group. Irony of ironies.
#15194391
Sandzak wrote:Guantanamo is a camp for a few houndred people... who were probably high-ranking Al Qaida members... whereas in East-Turkestan 1- 3 Million dissappeared behind bars.


Actually, you're wrong. Any high rank officers would have been charged and trialled. The people in Guantanamo were prisoners in the wrong place at the right time. I guess some would have been low level insurgents. Others were just caught up in the conflict. The point of Guantanamo was to force out new intelligence through torture. The problem is if you don't know anything you will make it up to spare being drowned. So you can thank Guantanamo for some of the worse intelligence going.
#15194394
Fasces wrote:1) justifying the actions that led to more than a million dead in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen, at the hands of US forces and their proxies (and millions more displaced,

The removal of Saddam was a noble, righteous and moral act. I'm deeply proud that I was one of the earliest supporters for the invasion. An invasion that brought majority rule to Iraq. Shia rule is not ideal, but it is better to have the Shia majority in charge, with Kurdish autonomy than the Sunni terrorist minority. The carnage in Iraq is in significant part the responsibility of western lefties. Their support for Saddam's regime gave hope to Iraq's Sunni Arab Muslim terrorists that their rule could be restored. Could things have been done better in Iraq? Yes certainly if the Shia Militia's had been unleashed earlier many innocent Shia, Kurdish and democracy supporting Sunni Arab lives could have been saved. I personally called for this.

I certainly did not support the western involvement in Yemen, again the Shia were the progressive if not ideal forces. I'm no fan of Biden but I praised his decision to reduce American support for the Saudi terror machine and its allies in Yemen. But actions in Yemen in no way negate the great good that Bush and Blair did in Iraq.
#15194415
Fasces wrote:Wtf was your point then?

All I said was that China's approach to repressing Uyghur's in the name of counter-terrorism and combatting reactionary Islamism was repressive, but preferable to the American approach of bombing them, their families, their jobs, and their nations.

I'm sure a better approach exists, but the Western narrative is not only poorly constructed and exaggerated (and is now falling apart entirely) but was constructed entirely to serve a nefarious purpose - 1) justifying the actions that led to more than a million dead in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen, at the hands of US forces and their proxies (and millions more displaced, not to mention the ripple effects of having an entire generation victim to foreign invasion and conflict) while 2) manufacturing consent for the next wave of imperialist atrocity by Western capital.

On the problem of "How do deal with radical Islamic terrorism", the US answer was to wage war, and the Chinese answer was to use big data analytics to identify at-risk populations, then invest in vocational training, language training, and political/social education in attempt to integrate these populations into the Chinese state.

I'm not going to sit here and defend cultural erasure: it was terrible when Spaniards, Canadians, and Americans did it to Native Americans, whatever their false remorse nowadays, and it is a terrible thing that China is doing in the name of cultural cohesion. It will lead to problems of alienation and is a loss of human heritage. But fuck me - between Option A and Option B, it is the more humane of the two, especially when one considers the advances made in...

1) the rights of women, the education of women, and woman's health in the region.
2) the economic advancement of the region (3x the GDPPC in a decade)
3) advancements in literacy (Xinjiang went from ranked last among Chinese provinces in 2008 to 14th in 2019, and above the Chinese national average)

Hell, it may even be a more humane alternative to the reservation hell the US has created that exists nowadays, purely in terms of material well-being.

But by being trained to hate this 'other' we avoid asking these hard questions about our own governments and their priorities, and can comfortably put aside our own problems - problems we could actually solve without violating the sovereignty of other people - by saying absolute tripe like "well at least we're not China".


Too bad doing the Chinese approach requires conquering and colonizing those societies. It seems to me that would lead to an even higher death toll.
#15194446
@wat0n

To be clear... You're saying that the difference between Xinjiang and the American involvement in Iraq or the Native Americans are that, unlike Iraq or the American West, China had to conquer and occupy the territory...

As opposed to Iraq or the American West... Which were not conquered or occupied... :knife:
#15194449
Fasces wrote:@wat0n

To be clear... You're saying that the difference between Xinjiang and the American involvement in Iraq or the Native Americans are that, unlike Iraq or the American West, China had to conquer and occupy the territory...

As opposed to Iraq or the American West... Which were not conquered or occupied... :knife:


What I'm saying is that you are using a false analogy. The right comparison is how America treats its own Muslim population with how China treats its own Muslim population.

A foreign attack on China would likely be met with a similar amount of force as a foreign attack on the US.
#15194451
wat0n wrote:The right comparison is how America treats its own Muslim population with how China treats its own Muslim population.


Why? Because you're reasonably* sure that the US comes off looking better that way?

The correct comparison is "US response to Islamic terrorism within its borders and Chinese response to Islamic terrorism within its borders."

*I'm also pretty confident that when you look at the numbers, given that the majority of Muslims in the US are poor and black, the statistics will not be as kind to the US as you hope. :lol:

wat0n wrote: A foreign attack on China would likely be met with a similar amount of force as a foreign attack on the US.


This is pure faith-based conjecture. You'd like it to be true, so you assume it is. :roll:
#15194457
Fasces wrote:Why? Because you're reasonably* sure that the US comes off looking better that way?

The correct comparison is "US response to Islamic terrorism within its borders and Chinese response to Islamic terrorism within its borders."

*I'm also pretty confident that when you look at the numbers, given that the majority of Muslims in the US are poor and black, the statistics will not be as kind to the US as you hope. :lol:


Well, invading and occupying a territory you don't control will normally lead to war, and plenty of dead people. You don't need to do that if you already control the territory, do you?

Fasces wrote:This is pure faith-based conjecture. You'd like it to be true, so you assume it is. :roll:


So what you are saying is that one can kill 3000 people in Beijing and expect little Chinese response?
#15194458
:roll:

wat0n wrote:So what you are saying is that one can kill 3000 people in Beijing and expect little Chinese response?


Given China's current power projection capability beyond the First Island Chain, I am saying that if some Saudi terrorists kill 3,000 in Beijing, Beijing won't be able to invade and destabilize two sovereign nations (even if it had the will or desire to engage in disastrous nation-building projects), won't sponsor a genocide in a third, and aggressively posture against another two.

That being said, I am quite convinced that China's foreign policy abroad wouldn't make it an attractive target for foreign terror groups in the first place. Another point of preference for Chinese policy.
#15194465
Fasces wrote::roll:


The funny thing is that China at some point did conquer the Xinjiang region (the 18th century, I think) so most of the things you accuse the US of were already done when China became the PRC - several centuries ago.

Fasces wrote:Given China's current power projection capability beyond the First Island Chain, I am saying that if some Saudi terrorists kill 3,000 in Beijing, Beijing won't be able to invade and destabilize two sovereign nations (even if it had the will or desire to engage in disastrous nation-building projects), won't sponsor a genocide in a third, and aggressively posture against another two.

That being said, I am quite convinced that China's foreign policy abroad wouldn't make it an attractive target for foreign terror groups in the first place. Another point of preference for Chinese policy.


So in this scenario there would be no Chinese response it because, in your view, it couldn't, not because it wouldn't.

Honestly I think China could and would forcefully respond to a 9/11 type of attack in its soil, and furthermore I highly doubt the international community would stop them, just as it didn't stop the US at the time. It would have a much stronger case for using force than in its border conflicts with the USSR or India in the 1960s, for starters, and not because it did or didn't have one back then but because an attack that kills thousands of Chinese civilians in a large city there would lead to widespread sympathy for the Chinese position.

And I don't see why couldn't China be attacked by islamists in the future, over Xinjiang as the stated reason even if in reality it could be over something else (maybe having issues with the new Taliban government in Afghanistan a few years from now).
#15194466
Prison camps designed to commit genocide against innocent people within a hated ethnic minority by a totalitarian dictatorship doesn't sound like fascism at all.

The totalitarian dictatorship threatening to annex a neighboring independent sovereign state against their wishes and flying war planes through their airspace to assert dominance doesn't sound like fascism at all.
Colin Powell....

Trump is a true low-class bitch. He's a sopping […]

"Whether we like it or not"

If the energy keeps getting re-emitted and re-abso[…]

Odd choice of words. When I was in Austria, in[…]

If you are arguing that both have similar enough […]