U.S. Accuses China of Detaining Up to 3M Muslims in 'Concentration Camps'

>You acknowledged that the Chinese government is operating ideological internment camps that happen to contain almost exclusively Uighur people who were taken there against their will and held without trial.

>You refuse to condemn this, and you've provided justification for why they are necessary. My original interpretation of your comment that was therefore correct with that caveat that you take issue with the term "concentration camp".

First of all, why is my personal condemnation so important to you? I will not be coerced into making statements for the satisfaction of others, as I think it’s a disingenuous form of argument. It would be like me asking you to condemn the ethnic cleansing of Han Chinese by Uighers during the Urumqi riots -why should I need that condemnation from you and why should you need to vindicate yourself for me? I have already stated that I will always condemn the detainment of innocents. There should be enough information there for you to extrapolate what I do and do not condemn.

Secondly, in all of my comments, I have never denied that the Chinese government is operating ideological re-education camps. I have disputed accusations that they are primarily operate as ethnic concentration camps. I have also disputed the purpose, the scale, and the characterization of the camps. There is zero evidence that they “happen to contain almost exclusively Uighur people”, though I personally believe that many of them are, given the nature of the terrorist incidents in the region.

> My original interpretation of your comment that was therefore correct with that caveat that you take issue with the term "concentration camp".

This is your original interpretation of my comment:

>The strongest possible interpretation of "You can't judge China by the same standards as modern, highly educated western democracies" is that it's wrong to judge China for locking up more than a million people of a specific ethnicity in concentration camps.

Your original interpretation of my comment is still completely incorrect because I have never made the statement “it's wrong to judge China for locking up more than a million people of a specific ethnicity in concentration camps”. You keep trying to make it seem as though I’ve said this, but you can’t, because I didn’t.

>When there are systemic injustices it is appropriate to condemn the system.

Where is your proof that there are systematic injustices? Provide proof that three million Uigher Muslims have been put into concentration camps because of their ethnicity as an official policy of the CCP. Provide proof that they are being tortured and forced into hard labour as an official policy of the CCP. We’re not talking about the kind of proof that arises from “journalists” who have never set foot in the region. We’re not talking about the kind of proof that arises from satellite images either (not sure if you still remember all the satellite images of Saddam’s WMD facilities). If you believe that putting several thousand people into “re-education” camps against their will because of possible extremist ideology is an injustice, then you are free to condemn that if you wish.

> The vast majority of racial injustice in the US isn't a matter of official policy either, yet it's absurd that you would refuse to condemn the Justice system for the end result.

Why on earth would that be absurd? This argument makes no sense to me. If the US justice system worked 100% correctly the way it was intended to work, there would not be any racial injustices, correct? So why would it make sense to blame the US justice system for abuses that arose organically, despite what is written in law?

Arresting someone because of their skin colour is illegal according to US law. By your logic, the fact that individual police officers choose to racially profile people anyway should be blamed on the law? That’s simply not logical. Why would it be absurd to refuse to condemn the justice system for abuses arising from individual police officers’ racial prejudices, when the justice system specifically makes this type of discrimination illegal? Interested in reading your explanation.

> Many non media groups have made similar allegations including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, The Government of Turkey, and The US State Department. This isn't a media conspiracy theory. Amnesty international interviewed over a hundred people who claim that their relatives are missing. They interviewed people who claimed to have been tortured in the camps. To me, that alone is enough evidence for the world to demand answers.

If a 100 interviews from people with missing relatives is enough to convince you that three million Uighers are being systematically detained and tortured because of their ethnicity, then your standard for what constitutes evidence is much lower than mine. Without adequate proof, these allegations are no different and no better than a politically motivated conspiracy theory. It's enough evidence for the world to demand answers but it's not enough evidence for the wholesale indictment that's going on right now.

>This is completely insane. The equivalent argument is that there is no systemic racial injustice in the United States because the constitution officially requires equal treatment under the law.

That is not remotely an equivalent argument. The definition of systemic injustice is injustice which arises from from a system or structure of power such as a government or nation state. It implies that the institutions of society are the genesis of the injustice. There is no proof of systemic injustice at the scale of three million Uighers being detained and put into concentration camps due to their ethnicity. There might be proof of individuals within the system abusing their powers of authority.

>It's either an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory which of course requires no response, or enough evidence for the world to demand answers. It can't be both.

Conspiracy theory was your word -I would have chosen something more like “propaganda campaign of exaggerated facts”. Nonetheless, I disagree with the premise of your statement that it can’t be both. Conspiracy theories or propaganda campaigns do not preclude the asking of further questions.

>For that to be true, the Trump administration, The government of Turkey, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and dozens of mainstream media outlets from dozens of countries would need to be working together.

As I’ve said before, the Trump administration has no credibility whatsoever either in domestic or foreign policy. Nonetheless, the US still recognizes the East Turkestan Islamic Movement as a terrorist organization. Turkey is currently undergoing social unrest due to hyperinflation and a failing economy. Of course it would be in their interest to placate their people whichever way they can. Here is Turkey designating Eastern Turkestan’s (aka Xinjiang’s) Islamic movement as terrorists as recently as 2017 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDhxU4gwfzs. (Also, considering how Turkey is treating Kurdish minorities within its own borders, they are hardly a moral authority.)

As for Amnesty International and HRW, many of their sources are affiliated with Radio Free Asia which is directly funded by the US government and has roots with the CIA. There has been precedence of bias in both organizations as found here [1] and here [2]. This following paragraph provides a good summary of the criticism:

>In May 2014 an open letter was published criticising Human Rights Watch for what were described as its close ties to the government of the United States. The letter was signed by Nobel Peace Laureates Adolfo Pérez Esquivel and Mairead Corrigan, former UN Assistant Secretary-General Hans von Sponeck, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Richard A. Falk, and over 100 scholars and cultural figures. The letter highlighted a number of Human Rights Watch officials who had been involved in foreign policy roles in the US government, including Washington advocacy director Tom Malinowski, formerly a speechwriter for Madeleine Albright and a special adviser to Bill Clinton, and subsequently Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor to John Kerry, and HRW Americas advisory committee members Myles Frechette (a former United States Ambassador to Colombia) and Michael Shifter (former Latin America director for the US government-funded National Endowment for Democracy). The letter contrasted HRW's criticism of Venezuela's candidacy for the United Nations Human Rights Council in a letter to Hugo Chávez to the lack of censure regarding the United States' tenure as a member of the Council, despite the US government's use of a "kill list" for designated enemies, ongoing usage of extraordinary renditions and the continued detention of combatants at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. The signatories called on Human Rights Watch to ban those involved in formulating or carrying out US foreign policy from serving as members of the organisation's staff, advisers or board members, or as a "bare minimum", instituting lengthy cooling-off periods between spells working for HRW and in the service of US foreign policy

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watc...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amnesty_Internati...

> Also are you familiar with the term Gish gallop, because that's what you're doing with this thread.

I'm not familiar with the term.

> The Gish gallop is a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming an opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments.

I am arguing in good faith and now you are accusing me of "Gish Galloping". You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it shouldn't be presented as universal truth.

I'm sorry that you feel overwhelmed by my arguments, but I have yet to see any evidence refuting the accuracy of what I am saying, just appeals to emotion and the parroting of mainstream media headlines -yet I have still bothered to address each of those comments point by point.

You are of course free to disengage at any time. I will interpret the fact that you are accusing me of Gish Galloping and disengaging as a sign of both the accuracy and strength of my arguments.

> I think that you should rethink this whole lone voice crying out in the wilderness/I unilaterally accept your concession thing.

It’s true though, isn’t it? You’ve accused me of Gish Galloping when I’ve done no such thing. If you feel overwhelmed and cannot respond to my very cogent arguments, then you are free to disengage.

> Here's an example of what I mean by Gish Galloping. Pay close attention to the "without regard for accuracy of the arguments" part of the definition.

>You throw out a 3 claims in 2 sentences, and give citations that seem like they support those assertions. Yet when you go to link #2 the first sentence is "In 2005, Amnesty International claimed that the United States was a human rights offender."

You can google any one of those assertions. Those are three easily verifiable and widely known facts. Just three. Just because you have no knowledge of those facts does not make my point “Gish Galloping”.

>Sure there are allegations of bias, so you didn't technically lie, but there are more allegations of bias against the US than towards it.

Again. “You didn’t technically lie”. So what are you accusing me of doing then, lying in some other manner? I’ve simply stated that there is precedence of bias. Some of those biases include bias in favour of the US. These are my exact words: “There has been precedence of bias in both organizations”.

>No one could read that article as supporting your stance that Amnesty International is biased towards the US, but you didn't care about whether the source actually supports your argument.

Again with the arguing against straw-men. Show me the part where I say Amnesty International is biased towards the US. I simply state that there is precedence of bias, and my source [2] clearly demonstrates this. The purpose of that reference was that these are not organizations which are 100%, indisputably neutral and without bias. It's unproductive to put words in my mouth only to argue against them.

> You're trying to fill your post with so many partially true assertions that I don't have the time or inclination to fact check all of them.

I’ve systematically went through each and every one of your points and refuted them, with citations. You’ve appealed to emotion and recycled your headline assertions which I then had to further refute. You’ve provided no count-evidence and no citations. You can’t be bothered to check citations which you find dubious -why are you still engaged in this conversation?

>Then you make a very vague claim that "many of their sources are affiliated with Radio Free Asia". This is a meaningless statement that can't be disproved because it's too nebulous.

Fact: Both Amnesty International and HRW quote information from Radio Free Asia

Fact: Radio Free Asia which is directly funded by the US government and has roots with the CIA

It’s literally a 2 second google away. You’ll find RFA referenced everywhere in their articles concerning Xinjiang. I’ve provided references; laziness to verify my references does not make my statement “nebulous”.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/uighur-journa... https://www.amnesty.org/en/get-involved/take-action/china-xi... https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/09/09/eradicating-ideologica... https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/11/23/china-allow-independent-... and many, many more.

Clearly not a meaningless statement and clearly cannot be disproved, because it's true. Why do you make unsubstantiated statements such as this?

>That's not at all what systemic injustice means. You're just throwing out assertions that kind of sound like they might be right.

No. That is my definition and the common interpretation in literature, and that's how it's commonly understood. There is no official definition, but there are several sources online which support my definition:

[1] “Systemic Racism includes the policies and practices entrenched in established institutions, which result in the exclusion or promotion of designated groups. It differs from overt discrimination in that no individual intent is necessary. “ http://www.aclrc.com/forms-of-racism

[2] “Systemic bias, also called institutional bias, is the inherent tendency of a process to support particular outcomes. The term generally refers to human systems such as institutions” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_bias

[3] “In finance, systemic risk is the risk of collapse of an entire financial system or entire market, as opposed to risk associated with any one individual entity, group or component of a system” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_risk

“Systemic risk refers to the risk of a breakdown of an entire system rather than simply the failure of individual parts.” https://www.cfainstitute.org/en/advocacy/issues/systemic-ris...

[4] “Systemic discrimination refers to patterns of behavior, policies or practices that are part of the structures of an organization, and which create or perpetuate disadvantage for racialized persons. “ https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/systemic-discrimination/

[5] “Institutional racism (also known as systemic racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions.“ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism

There is a pattern here:

Systemic racism is institutional racism

Systemic bias is institutional bias

Systemic risk is institutional risk

Systemic discrimination is institutional discrimination

Systemic injustice is _____________?

> There isn't really much point in you continuing to use debate tactics like this, we're deep enough in the weeds that it's just you and me. No reason to deny farting in an elevator with only 2 passengers.

I’m not the one throwing out thinly veiled accusations of lying and Gish Galloping. As I’ve said before, you are free to end the conversation at any time if you feel overwhelmed by my well-researched arguments and facts. If you question the facts that I’ve provided citations for, but are unwilling to verify them, then it’s not clear why you’re still here having this conversation unless it’s “to win”. As you’ve said, it’s just me and you here. It’s ok to concede that you’ve lost the debate.

Either way, I’m perfectly happy to proceed.

>Again with the arguing against straw-men. Show me the part where I say Amnesty International is biased towards the US. I simply state that there is precedence of bias, and my source [2] clearly demonstrates this. The purpose of that reference was that these are not organizations which are 100%, indisputably neutral and without bias. It's unproductive to put words in my mouth only to argue against them.

What I'm going to say is going to sound like hyperbole, but I'm 100% serious.

I've been on HN since 2011. This is without a doubt the single worst argument I have ever seen.

We can't trust Amnesty international not to toe the US party line on China...because the US government thinks they're biased against the US government.

Because it was too snarky.

So your point is that we shouldn't trust Amnesty International because they aren't 100% indisputably neutral.

And as evidence that they don't meet that standard, you've pointed out that countries that they've criticised don't agree with that criticism.

I don't think that's what you meant because it's too stupid to comprehend. I think you were trying discredit Amnesty International, but you lacked the evidence, so you tried to tie them to the accusations against HRW.

You put a statement that Amnesty International and HRW are biased in the middle of a paragraph associating Amnesty International and HRW with the CIA, followed by a quote accusing HRW of pro US bias.

It's another well known shitty debate tactic.

"Bob and Jane are involved with conflict diamonds."

Then you provide a quote that shows Bob is a diamond smuggler and a link with more supporting evidence. Followed by a link that shows Jane investigates diamond smugglers.

You hope that no one will read the link, but if they do and they call you on it, you whine about how you weren't actually lying. Jane is involved with conflict diamonds. You never explicitly said she was a smuggler.

If feel like you're projecting with your comments about needing to get the last word btw.