this post was submitted on 24 May 2022
22 points (100.0% liked)
World News
1036 readers
28 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I've read plenty of it. I've also seen plenty of counter-evidence, so you'll have to forgive me for not reading through all claims made by highly disreputable sources -- it's far easier to make an outrageous accusation than to disprove it. I'm sure you've read the article you posted, so feel free to point out which parts you find convincing.
EDIT: I have now read the article. It certainly does make some allegations (although even if it is completely accurate, the Chinese government's treatment of the potential religious extremists detained there is far more humane than what the US does on a regular basis).
An interesting thing to note is that one of the articles linked at the bottom is an excellent example of the lies outlets like the BBC frequently spread about the official enemies of the imperial core -- this article repeats the extreme claims made by Tursunay Ziyawudun, who is known to have changed her story multiple times (1, 2 (same article as above), summary (from a pro-China source), another summary in a Twitter thread).
~~Why would you want to discuss an article you haven't even read?~~ [due to graineters edit]
The authenticity of the sources seems plausible.
It's not about me or what I find convincing, and it 's not my intention to convince anyone, so pls don't judge others by yourself
Finished my edit a second after you posted this.
I would argue that a story "seeming plausible" isn't a particularly good reason for these extreme accusations, but you do you.
Don't try to twist the words in my mouth. I never said the story is plausible, but the authenticity of the sources
can you tell the difference?
What? No, I can't particularly see how you could consider the story implausible while the sources are authentic. (EDIT: Unless you believe that the BBC is deliberately drawing faulty conclusions.)
I respect that you can't see it, so have a nice day anyway.
You have a nice day, too.