If being reactionary meant relinquishing the right to national self determination, the Israelis would be justified in opposing a free Palestine on the basis of Hamas being salafist shits. But they are not because it does not.
The US tried to foment division in China by funding and organizing terrorist cells in Xinjiang, and when those efforts failed it concocted and promoted a genocide narrative. Antony Blinken is still pushing this slop, just last week.
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.
They've been supporting Ukraine since the first day and been encouraging peace talks. China is one of their biggest trading partners and it's in their interest. China hasn't been sending weapons because that's just putting fuel into the fire. And they also didn't do sanctions against Russia, because those haven't been decided by the UN.
They kinda pretend to play both sides, kinda not. Left hand says peace talks (without action and on Russia's terms), right hand helps Russia with resources.
The right to resistance does not make occupation illegal. China is simply saying that Ukraine should be allowed to fight back just as Palestine should be allowed to fight back.
It's because they know it's less likely that they get hurt in peaceful protest and they're more likely to die when protesters are ready to respond with violence and weapons.
Does anybody know where they getting the numbers for this claim? I see that they cited "Associated Press and other sources" for the US protest arrest numbers, but no source for Hong Kong protest arrests numbers.
I would like to find some corroboration for this claim and all I can find for Hong Kong is a count of deaths, injuries, arrests, and charges once public protests had effectively ceased.
My other question is whether the numbers for HK protests are low because, well, it's fucking China, and two that they weren't out there to take names. They were there to destroy people's will.
The numbers I'm seeing for Hong Kong are in excess of 10,000 in connection with the protests, but those protests lasted for a lot longer (20 months) and were much larger. Millions marched, representing a large portion of the population. The video specifically selected a semi-arbitrary time frame of several months. I guess the idea is to select a slice of the time frame of the Hong Kong protests that produced 2,300 arrests?
The protests in the US just haven't been comparable in size or length. And there is where the comparison is going to be awkward. These sorts of protests have a history of burning themselves out fairly quickly in the US. I remember Occupy Wall Street and its spin offs lasted a few months, made its mark, but kind of fizzled. The BLM/George Floyd protests of 2020 had the same thing happen. Not that Occupy or BLM themselves died, but the clashes that were driving arrests ended. So in the end, I'm not really sure what the comparison with Hong Kong was supposed to show.
Not that it is not worrying that peaceful protesters are arrested but but 2 months are just roughly 4 times two weeks while Hong Kong's population (7.35 million) is just 1/45th of the US population (333 million).
media.mas.to
Hot