Biden team faced "tirade" at meeting with Chinese over America's poor human rights record in "Diplomatic humiliation"

[Generals]

American Client State attacks worship service for some reason. Moral™

You could have at least done a quick google before posting... Apparently there were (violent) protests and clashes with the police in the area. This doesn't mean this particular intervention was justified but stripping the event of all its context to pretend it's gratuitous is typical social media news twisting.
And I am not saying this as a staunch Israel defender, but Israel can be criticised for so many things that there is really no need to de-contextualize events to make them look worse. The illegal annexation of Palestian land is already reason enough to justify sanctions... (imho)

 

[Cheetodust]

You could have at least done a quick google before posting... Apparently there were (violent) protests and clashes with the police in the area. This doesn't mean this particular intervention was justified but stripping the event of all its context to pretend it's gratuitous is typical social media news twisting.
And I am not saying this as a staunch Israel defender, but Israel can be criticised for so many things that there is really no need to de-contextualize events to make them look worse. The illegal annexation of Palestian land is already reason enough to justify sanctions... (imho)

It is still gratuitous. Similar to bloody Sunday here in ireland. It might have been a response to violence but

A) violent protests are 100% justified when your land is stolen and apartheid is introduced

B) retaliation against people other than the protestors is just a continuation of the violent suppression of the people whose land has been stolen.

 

[Seanchaidh]

You could have at least done a quick google before posting... Apparently there were (violent) protests and clashes with the police in the area. This doesn't mean this particular intervention was justified but stripping the event of all its context to pretend it's gratuitous is typical social media news twisting.
And I am not saying this as a staunch Israel defender, but Israel can be criticised for so many things that there is really no need to de-contextualize events to make them look worse. The illegal annexation of Palestian land is already reason enough to justify sanctions... (imho)

I'm really not too concerned why Israel is attacking peaceful worshipers.

 

[Seanchaidh]

What am I to make of this? There's a conspiracy to force Muslims to do Muslim things for international public relations purposes so that they can stop Muslims from doing Muslim things? Or maybe a simpler explanation is that a US government-funded propaganda outlet is using any excuse it can to vilify a country it wants hostilities with. Whether you see the invisible tentacles of the Chinese Communist Party manipulating the dancing people or not, compare this to the scene at Al-Aqsa Mosque. The US government, speaking on location from the Moral High Ground™ of course, says only that Israel has a "right to defend itself" and gets a bit squishy if asked whether Palestinians enjoy that same right.

 

[Seanchaidh]

This person outlines what I think is a good case for skepticism of claims about dastardly China's evil deeds:

The Xinjiang Atrocity Propaganda Blitz

On July 26, 2020 I sat down for two hours and laid out on Twitter why I was skeptical of accusations that China was committing a genocide against the Uyghur people in its western province of Xinjiang. I spoke out, despite lacking professional credentials, because I was frustrated…

redsails.org

 

[tstorm823]

This person outlines what I think is a good case for skepticism of claims about dastardly China's evil deeds:

The Xinjiang Atrocity Propaganda Blitz

On July 26, 2020 I sat down for two hours and laid out on Twitter why I was skeptical of accusations that China was committing a genocide against the Uyghur people in its western province of Xinjiang. I spoke out, despite lacking professional credentials, because I was frustrated…

redsails.org

That person is unhinged, and wrote a frighteningly long piece that amounts to "anything anti-communists say should be assumed to be a lie." Of course you like it.

 

[Seanchaidh]

That person is unhinged, and wrote a frighteningly long piece that amounts to "anything anti-communists say should be assumed to be a lie." Of course you like it.

That is very much not a fair characterization of the piece. In any case, anticommunists do have a rather poor record when it comes to telling the truth.

 

[Silvanus]

This person outlines what I think is a good case for skepticism of claims about dastardly China's evil deeds:

The Xinjiang Atrocity Propaganda Blitz

On July 26, 2020 I sat down for two hours and laid out on Twitter why I was skeptical of accusations that China was committing a genocide against the Uyghur people in its western province of Xinjiang. I spoke out, despite lacking professional credentials, because I was frustrated…

redsails.org

In short, a lot of untrustworthy people are saying it, so we should assume it's untrue.

Ignoring that we have quite a lot of direct survivor testimony and first-hand sources as well. Ignoring that much more trustworthy outlets have reported on it.

I'm so fucking done with atrocity denial. Particularly when self-described socialists take it upon themselves to defend the actions of an authoritarian corporatist state.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Ignoring that we have quite a lot of direct survivor testimony and first-hand sources as well.

Do we actually?

Ignoring that much more trustworthy outlets have reported on it.

The New York Times said that Saddam Hussein had a clandestine nuclear weapons program.

I'm so fucking done with atrocity denial.

It appears you're mistaking subject matter for credibility.

 

[Silvanus]

Do we actually?

Yes, and they've already been repeatedly provided.

The New York Times said that Saddam Hussein had a clandestine nuclear weapons program.

I said "trustworthy".

It appears you're mistaking subject matter for credibility.

It appears you're basing whether or not you believe something purely on subject matter, rather than credibility.

This denial owes itself purely to a pre-existing geopolitical position; that was kind of obvious from the get-go.

 

[Revnak]

This person outlines what I think is a good case for skepticism of claims about dastardly China's evil deeds:

The Xinjiang Atrocity Propaganda Blitz

On July 26, 2020 I sat down for two hours and laid out on Twitter why I was skeptical of accusations that China was committing a genocide against the Uyghur people in its western province of Xinjiang. I spoke out, despite lacking professional credentials, because I was frustrated…

redsails.org

“And who were the people who we got our initial reports about Auschwitz from? It was the dirty commies of course! Clearly it was just images and reports of their own starving people, and they then pretended facilitates with pools and gyms for all workers were meant for murder!”

 

[Seanchaidh]

Yes, and they've already been repeatedly provided.

If it were "a lot", would it require repetition?

I said "trustworthy".

Who is trustworthy?

That same interview [in which Goodman interviews Adrian Zenz] features Rushan Abbas, whom Amy Goodman refers to as “a Uyghur-American activist.” From her own page at ISI Consultants:

[Abbas] has extensive experience working with U.S. government agencies, including Homeland Security, Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Justice, and various U.S. intelligence agencies.
…
She was also employed at L-3, as a consultant at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, supporting Operation Enduring Freedom during 2002-2003 and as a news reporter at Radio Free Asia.
Ms. Abbas has also worked as a linguist and translator for several federal agencies including work for the US State Department in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and for President George W. Bush and former First Lady Laura Bush.

This information should have been relayed to Democracy Now! listeners, but it wasn’t.

What is going on here?

It appears you're basing whether or not you believe something purely on subject matter, rather than credibility.

This denial owes itself purely to a pre-existing geopolitical position; that was kind of obvious from the get-go.

Or maybe I can just recognize when there is a media campaign to vilify an international rival and employ appropriate skepticism as a result-- especially when there is a language barrier that encloses much of the relevant information at least from my view.

“And who were the people who we got our initial reports about Auschwitz from? It was the dirty commies of course! Clearly it was just images and reports of their own starving people, and they then pretended facilitates with pools and gyms for all workers were meant for murder!”

If the United States had fought on the side of the Nazis against the Soviet Union, or even if after the war the UK and US had (successfully) gone ahead with Operation Unthinkable, it seems doubtful that we'd know much of anything about Auschwitz right now.

 

[Avnger]

If the United States had fought on the side of the Nazis against the Soviet Union, or even if after the war the UK and US had (successfully) gone ahead with Operation Unthinkable, it seems doubtful that we'd know much of anything about Auschwitz right now.

1. And if the Soviet Union had fought on the side of the Nazis, we wouldn't have either, at least from USSR sources. Making up hypotheticals sure is fun...
2. Auschwitz, maybe not because it would have been under "enemy" control then. The camps that other Allied forces liberated would still have been publicized, for the same reason they were historically.

 

[Trunkage]

1. And if the Soviet Union had fought on the side of the Nazis, we wouldn't have either, at least from USSR sources. Making up hypotheticals sure is fun...
2. Auschwitz, maybe not because it would have been under "enemy" control then. The camps that other Allied forces liberated would still have been publicized, for the same reason they were historically.

Look, I’d add an addendum that finally the information about what happened at Auschwitz would have gotten out... but it would be like In the First Circle. So many years later

 

[Seanchaidh]

1. And if the Soviet Union had fought on the side of the Nazis, we wouldn't have either, at least from USSR sources.

Half of the entire point of the Nazis was getting rid of the communists, so that'd be pretty weird. Winston Churchill was quite sympathetic on that point.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Winston Churchill was quite sympathetic on that point.

And while he was often extremely awful, that was not an unusual position for people to hold until the Nazis threatened them or their power bases.

 

[Seanchaidh]

And while he was often extremely awful, that was not an unusual position for people to hold until the Nazis threatened them or their power bases.

It's not an unusual position to hold now.

 

[tstorm823]

It's not an unusual position to hold now.

I mean, communism really is the worst humanity has to offer.

 

[Hades]

I mean, communism really is the worst humanity has to offer.

Nah. Fascism.

Communism is a failed system that can never work and which attracts insane dictators. But there are reasons why the utopian version might attract people. A classless, stateless society which ideally has no poverty sounds like a good cause at least. As such I can at least understand why people were drawn with it.

Fascism on the other hand is also a failed system which can never work and attracts insane dictators. Its just far more obviously evil about it all. There's no draw to it other than a desire for power, to abuse others and justify it not with a concrete end goal but with the belief you and yours are inherently holy.

 

[tstorm823]

Nah. Fascism.

Communism is a failed system that can never work and which attracts insane dictators. But there are reasons why the utopian version might attract people. A classless, stateless society which ideally has no poverty sounds like a good cause at least. As such I can at least understand why people were drawn with it.

Fascism on the other hand is also a failed system which can never work and attracts insane dictators. Its just far more obviously evil about it all. There's no draw to it other than a desire for power, to abuse others and justify it not with a concrete end goal but with the belief you and yours are inherently holy.

I don't dispute any of your points, I'm just inclined to think it worse when the people committing all the same atrocities believe themselves to be moral leaders . Communism and fascism are similarly bad in their end results, but communism seduces good people into fighting for it.