• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

China Genocide - Uighur leader says 10,000 missing

Why? I understand your personal affinity for the Uighurs, but why should the rest of the world concern itself? Let the Chinese govern their own affairs, and if the Uighurs should either win independence or be made extinct, so be it.

My personal affinity? The hell does that even mean?

Are you telling me, because death is a natural process, we may aswell allow the killing of a certain ethnic people in the masses? How does your brain work? Will you deny the holocaust next or tell me saving Jews from the genocide in WW2 shouldnt have been a priority?
 
Korimyr, please do not imply that I'm a bleeding heart liberal. I believe in sensible policy and also don't believe in interfering with the affairs of another nation.

I realize your life has been hard and people have done things to you that make others appear selfish, and I also understand that we can't get involved in the affairs of other countries just because we don't like what we see.

By that same token, we can still condemn it, even if we can't do anything about it. I condemn China's actions, even though I was in the middle of it one day and had no power to do anything about it. That's different, though, than remaining completely apathetic.

I also understand that you don't have the mental energy to invest in every bad thing that is happening around the world. Neither do I... but in at least taking the time to learn about what is happening, you will have a better capacity to recognize similar circumstances if it starts to take place in your part of the world.

Furthermore, the U.S. is also engaged in imperialism in the Middle East, something directly connected to your participation in democracy. If you don't care, then no one will care for your country if it one day becomes weak and vulnerable.

You may think death is an end to a means, but to most people, what happens in between matters a lot.
 
My personal affinity? The hell does that even mean?

I mean that because the Uighurs are a Turkic people you might feel you have more reason to be concerned for their well-being than I do. I'm sorry if this was presumptuous of me or if I've given offense.

Are you telling me, because death is a natural process, we may aswell allow the killing of a certain ethnic people in the masses?

Yes.

How does your brain work? Will you deny the holocaust next or tell me saving Jews from the genocide in WW2 shouldnt have been a priority?

No, I will not deny the Holocaust. The historical record is clear on this matter.

But your question seems to include an implied assumption that saving Jews from genocide at the hands of the Nazi regime in World War 2 was a priority of the Allies. It was not. It was an afterthought, and a means to justify more thoroughly humiliating and dominating Germany after the war in order for the victorious Allies to more effectively exploit them. Even the welfare of the Jews after the Holocaust was an afterthought, as Britain did not cede them the land that became Israel until years afterward when they decided that Jewish Holocaust survivors both in Britain and in their Palestinian colonies were inconvenient. American support of Israel did not begin until decades later.

The Jews did not survive World War 2 because of the Allies' humanitarian interests in saving them. They survived because the Nazis were merely the latest in a long line of people determined to enslave and/or exterminate them, and because they are a tough and resilient people. I admire the Hell out of the Jewish people.

You will notice that we did not pursue Japanese war criminals with the same vigor, nor did we show even a small measure of the same concern for their Chinese and Korean victims as we did for-- some of-- the victims of the Nazi regime.

Korimyr, please do not imply that I'm a bleeding heart liberal. I believe in sensible policy and also don't believe in interfering with the affairs of another nation.

I did not intend to. While I do not agree with you, I respect your position on this matter and your unique perspective on it, given your direct experience living in China and dealing with the Chinese government. Unlike the other person I responded to, I did not take your accusation of selfishness as an attempt at personal insult and I hope that my direct reply to you was taken as an attempt at clarification of my moral and political position.

I realize your life has been hard and people have done things to you that make others appear selfish, and I also understand that we can't get involved in the affairs of other countries just because we don't like what we see.

I'm not opposed to active intervention in other nations' business. My only concern is that any such intervention needs to be carried out with clear and measurable objectives, and that those objectives can be reasonably accomplished without compromising our own interests. Aside from the point that I do not see any benefit in attempting to protect the Uighurs, I do not see any means by which we could effectively do so and I am concerned that any attempt to do so would harm our relationship with China which is a serious economic and military power and with whom our relationship is essential to our own economic well-being.

By that same token, we can still condemn it, even if we can't do anything about it. I condemn China's actions, even though I was in the middle of it one day and had no power to do anything about it. That's different, though, than remaining completely apathetic.

I do not see any difference between futile protest and complete inaction, except that futile protest wastes energy. And I do not honestly understand why I should be anything but completely apathetic to the fate of people I have no connection to. I might lament the loss of their artistic and literary traditions and their unique genetic makeup, but seeing as these things are highly unlikely to ever be of benefit to my own people, I am not terribly concerned.

Furthermore, the U.S. is also engaged in imperialism in the Middle East, something directly connected to your participation in democracy. If you don't care, then no one will care for your country if it one day becomes weak and vulnerable.

I have attempted, within my means, to oppose our imperalistic efforts in the Middle East because I do not see any profit in them.

And I do not share your assumption that others will care about my nation when it becomes weak and vulnerable. They will do as my nation has done, and as every powerful nation has done, and they will either exploit our weakness for their own gain or they will crush us into dust in order to lay claim to our land and our natural resources. This will occur whether we show compassion or not, and I can already see the vultures circling.

You may think death is an end to a means, but to most people, what happens in between matters a lot.

I think it matters, too. I just don't share your moral priorities. And I might point out that it's very useful that most people are concerned with what happens to distant strangers-- because it provides convenient justification for whatever intervention the ruling elite intend to pursue for their own purposes. There's a reason we used military force in Iraq and Kosovo while making nothing but token sounds of protest at Rwanda, Darfur, and Georgia.
 
I did not intend to. While I do not agree with you, I respect your position on this matter and your unique perspective on it, given your direct experience living in China and dealing with the Chinese government. Unlike the other person I responded to, I did not take your accusation of selfishness as an attempt at personal insult and I hope that my direct reply to you was taken as an attempt at clarification of my moral and political position.

I'm not opposed to active intervention in other nations' business. My only concern is that any such intervention needs to be carried out with clear and measurable objectives, and that those objectives can be reasonably accomplished without compromising our own interests. Aside from the point that I do not see any benefit in attempting to protect the Uighurs, I do not see any means by which we could effectively do so and I am concerned that any attempt to do so would harm our relationship with China which is a serious economic and military power and with whom our relationship is essential to our own economic well-being.

I do not see any difference between futile protest and complete inaction, except that futile protest wastes energy. And I do not honestly understand why I should be anything but completely apathetic to the fate of people I have no connection to. I might lament the loss of their artistic and literary traditions and their unique genetic makeup, but seeing as these things are highly unlikely to ever be of benefit to my own people, I am not terribly concerned.

I have attempted, within my means, to oppose our imperalistic efforts in the Middle East because I do not see any profit in them.

And I do not share your assumption that others will care about my nation when it becomes weak and vulnerable. They will do as my nation has done, and as every powerful nation has done, and they will either exploit our weakness for their own gain or they will crush us into dust in order to lay claim to our land and our natural resources. This will occur whether we show compassion or not, and I can already see the vultures circling.

I think it matters, too. I just don't share your moral priorities. And I might point out that it's very useful that most people are concerned with what happens to distant strangers-- because it provides convenient justification for whatever intervention the ruling elite intend to pursue for their own purposes. There's a reason we used military force in Iraq and Kosovo while making nothing but token sounds of protest at Rwanda, Darfur, and Georgia.

I find myself having not much to add. I don't agree with you even though I respect you. I consider myself to be a realist but when I read your posts I feel it puts my level of realism to shame. I guess my problem is that I always expect more from humanity but in the end am simply disappointed. I try my best to accept what goes in the world, but in the end my lone voice is rather powerless.

I do believe in the virtues of changing what immediately surrounds me, and as a result creating some sort of butterfly effect, however minute. In the end, it is all just anarchy though.

I also agree that all interventions past and present have other agendas at their core, and nothing is just for the "common good". I guess the situation in China particularly angered me, having seen it with my own eyes, and I placed that cause at a level of particular importance... when really, to any outsider, it is just one more injustice in a sea of many that we have virtually no control over.

The reason why I reacted so strongly to your apparent apathy was that, even in our own countries, people's inaction and unwillingness to care has resulted in an erosion of their own quality of life, their freedoms, their rights, and even their own compassion for their neighbours. Since you've let me know that you've actually protested the war, my views about you have changed.

I'm left with this feeling that if humans settle for what they've always had, then they'll always get what they've always gotten. So, people's apathy means that we are just letting ourselves come full circle. Our ancestors fought for humanitarian standards, now we are just letting ourselves slip back into iron grips again. History really is a circle, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
I mean that because the Uighurs are a Turkic people you might feel you have more reason to be concerned for their well-being than I do. I'm sorry if this was presumptuous of me or if I've given offense.

I couldnt care if they where yellow or green. They might be Turkic but apart from the fact that somewhere down the line we may have shared the same ancestry, it doesnt make a difference to me what they are. Im ethnically Turkish, and on the point, since the Ottoman empire i doubt theres very much Turkic left with us. Either way, race isnt an issue here. I care because they are humans and they are facing an injustice, and that nobody, Jew or otherwise, deserves to be treated and judged based on, as you rightfully say, "race" which is of no importance.


Then your a very cold, evil person. Thats what i would have said if i didnt know you as a poster on these forums. What makes you say this i do not know but its unforgivable.

No, I will not deny the Holocaust. The historical record is clear on this matter.

But your question seems to include an implied assumption that saving Jews from genocide at the hands of the Nazi regime in World War 2 was a priority of the Allies. It was not. It was an afterthought, and a means to justify more thoroughly humiliating and dominating Germany after the war in order for the victorious Allies to more effectively exploit them. Even the welfare of the Jews after the Holocaust was an afterthought, as Britain did not cede them the land that became Israel until years afterward when they decided that Jewish Holocaust survivors both in Britain and in their Palestinian colonies were inconvenient. American support of Israel did not begin until decades later.

Not that there mass killing, gas chambers and torture camps botheres you in any measurable way.


You will notice that we did not pursue Japanese war criminals with the same vigor, nor did we show even a small measure of the same concern for their Chinese and Korean victims as we did for-- some of-- the victims of the Nazi regime.

Then we are in the wrong.
 
I find myself having not much to add. I don't agree with you even though I respect you. I consider myself to be a realist but when I read your posts I feel it puts my level of realism to shame. I guess my problem is that I always expect more from humanity but in the end am simply disappointed.

I simply do not see humanity as something special and distinct from the rest of the natural world. We are shaped by the same processes, abide by the same laws, and in the end we have the same goals. It only becomes complicated because we are so very, very much smarter than other animals and our capacity for rationalizing the reasons for our own actions leads us to self-deception.

I expect people to fight like Hell to survive and improve their own lives, to love the people who love them back, and to act in their own general best interests. It's only when they fail to do those things that I am truly disappointed in them.

I guess the situation in China particularly angered me, having seen it with my own eyes, and I placed that cause at a level of particular importance... when really, to any outsider, it is just one more injustice in a sea of many that we have virtually no control over.

That's the difference of being there. Chinese domestic affairs affect you, affect people you know. You have reason to care, and reason to get involved, and it is natural to expect other people to feel the same way-- especially when you know that you'd need their help in order to change anything.

I'm left with this feeling that if humans settle for what they've always had, then they'll always get what they've always gotten. So, people's apathy means that we are just letting ourselves come full circle. Our ancestors fought for humanitarian standards, now we are just letting ourselves slip back into iron grips again. History really is a circle, isn't it?

Yes, it really is. And I suppose that the difference between us is that instead of despairing, I take comfort in it. As long as the the wheels keep turning and as long as we are forced to struggle against our environment and each other, we will keep growing and changing. When those wheels stop, and there is lasting peace and prosperity for everyone, there is nothing left for us but stagnation and death.

I couldnt care if they where yellow or green. ... Either way, race isnt an issue here. I care because they are humans and they are facing an injustice...

In that case you may have my apology, though I doubt you'll accept it.

Then your a very cold, evil person. Thats what i would have said if i didnt know you as a poster on these forums. What makes you say this i do not know but its unforgivable.

I am sorry you feel this way, but that is what I believe. It is natural for nations and cultures to conflict with each other, and in any war there are winners and losers. Whether they are slain, enslaved, or merely conquered, the losers always get the short end of the stick.

Not that there mass killing, gas chambers and torture camps botheres you in any measurable way.

No, they don't, and why should they? The Holocaust was foolish and immoral and a tremendous waste of German resources, but if anything my people gained from it. I would certainly neither encourage nor condone my own people engaging in such pointless viciousness.
 
Last edited:
Do you know what these Uighurs are doing?

They're murdering thousands of han chinese in riots. The ****ers deserve genocide right back at them. The western media is just trying to make the Chinese government look bad as usual.
 
Ethnically the Uighurs are Central Asian. They look nothing like Eastern Asians. They have light skin, brown hair, light coloured eyes, and a different bone structure.

The Chinese are spinning the story differently, but historically, Xinjiang was not a solidified part of China. The Qing dynasty had military outposts there to control trade along the silk road, but it never had an iron grip over the region. During the later periods when the Qing dynasty was suffering from widescale rebellion, a lot of the dissidents hid in Xinjiang which resulted in the Qing sending more campaigns out there, but they weren't long lasting.

Mostly, Xinjiang was a convergence zone for many different traders from all over the world. Even traders from ancient Rome made it all the way out there.

If you walk into musems in Xinjiang now, they are loaded with modern party propaganda. They make it look like Xinjiang was always officially part of China, all the way back to the Tang Dynasty. While the former dynasties mostly held administration over the region (such as road construction, keeping order, and controlling border crossings), the area was completely autonomous. The same thing has happened with Tibet.

It's sad to see what is happening there now. Xinjiang is essentially another country, and it is being invaded, colonized, and conquered by imperialists. The Uighurs originally wanted to make it Uighurstan, joining the other -stans, but the leadership mysteriously died on their way to Beijing for negotiations several decades ago. Gee, I wonder what happened.
 
Ethnically the Uighurs are Central Asian. They look nothing like Eastern Asians. They have light skin, brown hair, light coloured eyes, and a different bone structure.

White people in distress! Send the helicopters!
 
White people in distress! Send the helicopters!

They're not white. They look more Persian than anything, but not quite. They're their own ethnic group.
 
They're not white. They look more Persian than anything, but not quite. They're their own ethnic group.

Ohhhhh. Never mind.
*sad face
No helicopters then.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
In that case you may have my apology, though I doubt you'll accept it.

Theres no need to apologize in the first place, i know your intentions were not to insult and what you said wasnt offensive anyway.


I am sorry you feel this way, but that is what I believe. It is natural for nations and cultures to conflict with each other, and in any war there are winners and losers. Whether they are slain, enslaved, or merely conquered, the losers always get the short end of the stick.

How about helpless peoples without a nation or an army, like Uighurs and (pre 1944), the Jews.



No, they don't, and why should they? The Holocaust was foolish and immoral and a tremendous waste of German resources, but if anything my people gained from it. I would certainly neither encourage nor condone my own people engaging in such pointless viciousness.

You do not condone the actions of the Nazi's in World War 2, the genocide of the Jews, yet you call it immoral and vicious. Im lost for words.

....I thought your people where Americans.
 
How about helpless peoples without a nation or an army, like Uighurs and (pre 1944), the Jews.

I already think that it's okay for the weak to be crushed. What is "helpless" except another way of saying "weaker than weak"? There are essentially only two ways for a nation to be deprived of its own army and state: 1) they were defeated by a superior people, or 2) it was their own damned fault in the first place. Either way, I have no objection to a stronger nation finishing the job.

You do not condone the actions of the Nazi's in World War 2, the genocide of the Jews, yet you call it immoral and vicious. Im lost for words.

I do not ascribe any value to "condemnation". It's what people do when they find something offensive, but not actually offensive enough to do anything about it. When has "condemnation" ever stopped the powerful from enforcing their will upon the weak?

And yes, I do recognize the actions of the Nazis as immoral and vicious, at least regarding their own citizens. German Jews were, as the name suggests, German citizens-- oftentimes, from families that had been part of greater Germany for centuries. This is not to mention other victims of the Holocaust who had even stronger claims to membership of the German people. If the American government were cannibalizing the American people in such a fashion, I would not restrict my responses to mere "condemnation".

But the actions of the German people, however horrific, did not harm my people and it is to my people that I owe my sole moral obligation.

....I thought your people where Americans.

They are. It was German Jews who gave us the atomic bomb and Nazi war criminals who put us on the Moon. We owe our dominance in the second half of the 20th Century almost entirely to the monsters that you expect me to condemn-- and to the war in which their own viciousness contributed massively to their defeat at our hands.
 
Back
Top Bottom