AFGHANISTAN 2021:. THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT

The BBC's words are 'alleged', 'impossible to verify' and 'reports suggest'. The other words are not the BBC's, so what is your basis for trusting them and do they fall into one of the patterns I've described above?

Incidentally, most of the current furore stems from that chap they've mentioned, Adrian Zenz - exactly the sort of single origin I mentioned above. For a "leading expert on China's policies in Xinjiang", he's spent remarkably little time on it - up until 2019, his focus was on Tibet, despite not speaking any Tibetan and never having been there. He doesn't speak any Uighur, either, and his sole trip to Xinjiang was once in 2007 as a guest of the provincial government.

How about the professional opinion of a highly qualified and experienced QC? Or will it take video of Xi personally raping an Uighur woman in a concentration camp before you admit that the CCP's amorality, racist ideology and sadism make them the spiritual descendants of NASDAP?

 
How about the professional opinion of a highly qualified and experienced QC?
Her previous cases lead me to believe she sets quite a low bar for defining human rights violations.

The Clapham Omnibus definition of genocide would IMO include mass killing targeted at an ethnic group or preventing them from practicing their language and/or culture.

It doesn't include requiring minorities to learn the national language, placing restrictions on the religious education of minors or even mass detention.
 
Again, how does that mean the representatives of the Uighurs are telling the truth?

You are aware that it's possible for two opposing statements to both be lies, aren't you?
Although I'm in broad agreement with China's treatment of the enemy within ,they a conniving duplicitous thieving bunch of shits who breed like rats and are generally a two faced force of world wide chaos and rapacious greed and forgery . Other than that I have no strong feelings .
 
they a conniving duplicitous thieving bunch of shits who breed like rats and are generally a two faced force of world wide chaos and rapacious greed and forgery
Yet they've managed to be considerably less destructive on the world stage than the self-proclaimed good guys.
 
Yet they've managed to be considerably less destructive on the world stage than the self-proclaimed good guys.
Yes but it's not about success or failure it's about trying .
Trying is just the first step on the road to failure.
You have a point but I think my points are valid looking both back and forwards.

Carter was the fool who let the snake out of the box.

Dragons don't exist . Apart from the little lizardly ones and as they don't fly or breath fire don't count.
Snakes are low cold and dangerous .
 
Yes but it's not about success or failure it's about trying .
Yeah, it doesn't matter how many civvies we kill so long as we meant well.

That's why Iraq and Afghanistan were such resounding successes.
 

bob231

War Hero
Yes but it's not about success or failure it's about trying .
Trying is just the first step on the road to failure.
You have a point but I think my points are valid looking both back and forwards.
From the neutral PoV, I really don't think that holds up.

From the British PoV, that the Chinese can be favourably contrasted to us is concerning.
 
Whilst this dialogue between @smartascarrots @Werewolf et al is interesting is it more deserving of a place in a China thread?

Having said that; how China deals with part of it's own Muslim community, whilst simultaneously recognising the TB, yet suggesting they'll turn a blind eye to how they confront Massoud Jnrs Tajik opposition China's current challenge to empire building?

Contrary accounts of who's winning in the Panshir valley and lack of verifiable news sources don't help. If the fighting continues to the extent that it disrupts any cohesive Chinese ambitions to exploit the areas (and over how many years henceforth?) How much of a stumbling block to China is this? Could China be drawn into it's own covert war supplying the TB against the Tajiks? I'd assume they wouldn't need to filter any assistance through the Pakistanis/ISI?
 
Although I'm in broad agreement with China's treatment of the enemy within ,they a conniving duplicitous thieving bunch of shits who breed like rats and are generally a two faced force of world wide chaos and rapacious greed and forgery . Other than that I have no strong feelings .

You'll get splinters in your arse if you don't stop sitting on the fence, mate. :)
 
Her previous cases lead me to believe she sets quite a low bar for defining human rights violations.

The Clapham Omnibus definition of genocide would IMO include mass killing targeted at an ethnic group or preventing them from practicing their language and/or culture.

It doesn't include requiring minorities to learn the national language, placing restrictions on the religious education of minors or even mass detention.

And as is often the case, the Clapham Omnibus definition would, at the very least, be only partially correct. Genocide is not confined to gas chambers, ovens and mass graves. That is simply the final and most destructive aspect. There also exists the crime of Cultural Genocide, which the United Nations defines as,

Any deliberate act committed with the intention of destroying the language, culture and religion of a group. Such as, for example, banning the use of it's language, schools or places of worship.

China's actions against the Uighurs certainly fit that definition.
 
How about the professional opinion of a highly qualified and experienced QC? Or will it take video of Xi personally raping an Uighur woman in a concentration camp before you admit that the CCP's amorality, racist ideology and sadism make them the spiritual descendants of NASDAP?

The NASDAP was essentially a Satanic regime - whether they consciously realised it or not.

The CCP, while deeply unpleasant, unscrupulous, authoritarian and brutal (and arguably underpinned by a sense of racial superiority) is nowhere near the NASDAP nadir. The NASDAP was on a completely different wavelength to the utterly more rational and infinitely more sophisticated CCP. Different beasts with entirely different agendas.
 
The NASDAP was essentially a Satanic regime - whether they consciously realised it or not.

The CCP, while deeply unpleasant, unscrupulous, authoritarian and brutal (and arguably underpinned by a sense of racial superiority) is nowhere near the NASDAP nadir. The NASDAP was on a completely different wavelength to the utterly more rational and infinitely more sophisticated CCP. Different beasts with entirely different agendas.

Respectfully disagree. I have no doubt that if the CCP regarded mass extermination of the Uighurs to be the most efficient route to take, the ovens would be burning day and night. The only reason the Uighurs still exist is that China doesn't think it's worth the expense and effort of killing them all.

I will concede the CCP are more rational and intelligent than NASDAP. Which of course simply makes them more dangerous. In terms of morality, or lack thereof, you couldn't fit a fag paper between them.
 
China's actions against the Uighurs certainly fit that definition.
How so when they're actively funding Uighur language education programmes and sponsoring mosques? The definition you've quoted could apply to Gaels and Welsh-speakers in the UK up to the late 80s at least, but I think you'll agree there was no genocidal intent and no actual genocide carried out in giving minority groups the means to engage with mainstream society.

That the PRC are not allowing the people who want to be in charge in Xinjiang to be in charge in Xinjiang does not represent genocide under any definition, regardless of how lax.
 
The only reason the Uighurs still exist is that China doesn't think it's worth the expense and effort of killing them all
Yet you believe they think it worth the expense and effort of culturally genociding them?

Make your mind up, do.
 
Respectfully disagree. I have no doubt that if the CCP regarded mass extermination of the Uighurs to be the most efficient route to take, the ovens would be burning day and night. The only reason the Uighurs still exist is that China doesn't think it's worth the expense and effort of killing them all.

I will concede the CCP are more rational and intelligent than NASDAP. Which of course simply makes them more dangerous. In terms of morality, or lack thereof, you couldn't fit a fag paper between them.
My take on the CCP is that their policies towards (troublesome) ethnic minorities are 'Stalin Lite'.

The CCP attitude towards human beings is that they are worker/consumers and essentially assets. You don't burn assets. You do use whatever degree of force is necessary to achieve social conformity and discipline.
 
The CCP attitude towards human beings is that they are worker/consumers and essentially assets. You don't burn assets. You do use whatever degree of force is necessary to achieve social conformity and discipline.
There's the added factor that the government regards people as components of society and makes every effort to keep that society on what they regard as the right tracks. In that respect, education/brainwashing is an important component: they tried it on their UN prisoners in the Korean War and before that the former-KMT regime officials got the same treatment.

As an example, when the Red Army took Shanghai, the police were ordered to turn up for reeducation. Most of those who went expected brutality or execution, but instead they had to write an essay outlining all the nasty things they'd done and why the felt guilty about them. They were interviewed by a political officer and if he believed they were genuinely contrite and their sins were not too major then they were sent back to work.

The party line is that you need the people mostly onside most of the time - that's the reason it's survived so long and recruited a membership larger than the populations of some European countries.
 
There's the added factor that the government regards people as components of society and makes every effort to keep that society on what they regard as the right tracks. In that respect, education/brainwashing is an important component: they tried it on their UN prisoners in the Korean War and before that the former-KMT regime officials got the same treatment.

As an example, when the Red Army took Shanghai, the police were ordered to turn up for reeducation. Most of those who went expected brutality or execution, but instead they had to write an essay outlining all the nasty things they'd done and why the felt guilty about them. They were interviewed by a political officer and if he believed they were genuinely contrite and their sins were not too major then they were sent back to work.

The party line is that you need the people mostly onside most of the time - that's the reason it's survived so long and recruited a membership larger than the populations of some European countries.
I think that one of the keys to understanding Chinese communism is that it was originally embraced by people who'd grown up in a society shaped by Confucian philosophy. The Maoists might have tried to officially reject Confucianism - like angry adolescents - but it wasn't easily shed.

There's an ingrained instinct towards centralism and peer enforced inclusiveness. The old concept of the harmonious society wasn't entirely lost, it's merely evolved into something uglier.

If things go well for China, the communist period may eventually be regarded as a time of national renewal and economic growth after the Century of Humiliation. If things don't go well for China, the outcome will likely be a nightmare; because that's their modern history.
 
I think that one of the keys to understanding Chinese communism is that it was originally embraced by people who'd grown up in a society shaped by Confucian philosophy.
For my money, the key to understanding Chinese communism is to forget everything you know about Soviet communism. They're very different beasts.

Most of China's early communists came to it through various attempts to reconcile western social Darwinism with Chinese society and like most communists in E/SEA they were nationalists first and foremost.

Marxism is, for them, a tool to make China stronger and more cohesive and they fully anticipate that the capitalist segment of the journey will be occasionally rocky.

Confucianism has a lot in common with the key tenets of 'socialism with Chinese characteristics' and deliberately so. It's proven its worth time and again.
 
The 'butterfly effect' of Srebrenica?

'The Dutch defence minister has resigned over the government’s handling of evacuations from Afghanistan, announcing her move one day after the Netherlands’ foreign minister stepped down.

'Both high-profile figures were accused by legislators of bearing responsibility for the government’s slow response to the surge of the Taliban in Afghanistan and muddled management of evacuations.'


 
The CCP, while deeply unpleasant, unscrupulous, authoritarian and brutal (and arguably underpinned by a sense of racial superiority) is nowhere near the NASDAP nadir. The NASDAP was on a completely different wavelength to the utterly more rational and infinitely more sophisticated CCP. Different beasts with entirely different agendas.
Angels/Pinhead reasoning.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top