• Globeparasite@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yeah the fact that you’re calling a genocide a fucking conspiracy tell me everything there is to know on wether your opinion on genocide is valid or trustworthy

        • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Li Jingjing: Why the US wants to separate #Xinjiang from China? (cited 2003 report)

          The Grayzone has been covering the story for about five years: https://thegrayzone.com/page/2/?s=xinjiang

          ProleWiki: Uyghur genocide allegations

          Critical Resist: The blueprint of regime change operations

          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 the same town the CIA-owned Radio Free Europe operates). 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.

          But it fell on deaf ears. The sentiment at the time was that the Arab League wanted better relations with China and so they lied and said everything was fine.

          Everything the target country does to prove its innocence is a lie. Only we profess the truth.

          We suddenly stopped hearing about the ‘genocide’ as the world moved on to the war in Ukraine and now the October 7 operation in Palestine. These last two events were not controlled by Washington, and so they had to take precedence over the ‘genocide’. But it’s not over yet; they’ll find something else to pin on China eventually, and when they do, they’ll want you to remember all they’ve said about China in the past. They’ll want you to remember Tian’anmen (another mostly fabricated event), they’ll want you to remember the Uyghur ‘genocide’. They’ll want you to remember Tibet (for which they try to find stories, but they don’t tend to stick for very long).

          All so that when they make up more ludicrous stories about China, you’ll think they’re true, because you’ve been conditioned to believe more and more outrageous stories with time.

          When we finally declare war on China (if the NATO bloc ever gets to find a way to win that war), you’ll do the legwork of justifying this invasion yourself. We hope you’ll have been properly subdued by then and will happily cheer for the bombs. And if we install a US comprador government in China, we hope you won’t ask too many questions as it starts privatizing everything, reversing social welfare policies, jailing opponents, plummeting quality of life, destroying jobs and houses… and will just happily accept it as the right legitimate government — because it’s Western-backed.

          • Globeparasite@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            the Grayzone consider Gonzalo Lira a “commentator” They also try to explain to me that NATO was in fact allied with Serbia. The only thing differentiating them from pure propaganda is that propaganda is suppsoed to be coherent with itself

          • Globeparasite@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Your source are a fucking blog by a random, and a propagandist clone of wikipedia. “Hey nazis are cool, this film from Ufa proves it”

            Oh and for the first line, it is perfectly common for expert to not speak the language of a country they study as the concept of translation exist, let alone diplomatic institutions of countries you are studying do those translation themselves lol.

          • Globeparasite@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            So, one is a conspiracy theory, one has never been claimed so far, and one carries no substantial proofs due to the facts that it is simply a criminal trend in South Africa blown out of proportion by white supremacist.

            wrong again about me pal

    • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      Thank you. You better tell the rest of the people in this thread, because they seem hell bent on thinking that I am somehow pro-Israel and they need to aggressively lecture me at length on how Israel actually is committing genocide no matter how many time I say yes, they are. IDK, maybe people got hung up on my one initial statement before I read up and amended it, or maybe me saying that not all the people in the world believe Israel is committing genocide is still too “pro-Israel” a statement, and I’m obviously an enemy.

      I’ve basically concluded at this point that lemmy.ml is a very silly place.

      • gnuhaut@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        You just praised someone who thinks Israel is not committing genocide (“I’d disagree on the will to actually genocide” is genocide denial, because intent is literally part of the definition). You then complain that people don’t think you’re for real when you say “yes, they are”.

        • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          I think I just figured out what the fundamental issue is with lemmy.ml. It’s starting to sound like you don’t think people are allowed to think different things than you do.

          I read that this guy thinks Israel doesn’t have the will to commit genocide, yes. I think they do; many representatives of the current Israeli government have said many times more or less that they want to keep pushing until the Palestinians are all moved elsewhere, dead of starvation, or driven into the sea. But, I’m not stopping the entire conversation to shriek at this guy until he starts agreeing with me about everything (or, more likely, just leaves). It’s okay if I think one thing and he thinks something different.

          And now, the simple fact that I’m willing to talk to him without starting to shriek at him, abandoning the thing we were talking about (which is how to construct the strongest possible case against Israel), is somehow a bad thing.

          In what possible world is being willing to talk with someone who thinks different things than you some kind of “gotcha” that of course I’m lying about what I believe, because I’m having a relaxed conversation with someone who believes something different?

      • Globeparasite@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        happened to me too. People just make shit up based on what they think a comment and build you an opinion they then debunk without asking what your opinion actually is. Best is to do what I do : return to meme making

        • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Absolutely man. My new philosophy is to engage in a conversation whether I agree or disagree with the person, but then to use “block” and “unsubscribe” pretty liberally if it seems like people are more interested in giving abuse and “winning” than they are in engaging with what I’m saying.