The CPC could give up and surrender Xinjiang to ISIS. This option condemns millions of people to living under a fundamentalist Islamic State, including many non-Muslims and non-extreme Muslims. This option creates a CIA-aligned state on the border, and jeopardises a key part of the Belt and Road initiative, which is designed to connect landlocked countries for development and geopolitical positioning. This option also threatens the CPC’s legitimacy, as keeping China together is a historical signifier of the Mandate of Heaven.
The final option is the Chinese option. Mass surveillance. Use AI to liberally target anyone who may be at risk of radicalisation for re-education. Teach them the lingua franca of China, Mandarin. Pump money into the region for development. When people finish their time in re-education, set them up with state jobs. Keep the surveillance up. Allow and even celebrate local religious customs, but make sure the leaders are on-side with the party.
Let’s take a moment to distinguish that last approach from that of Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany wanted to exterminate the undesirables. Initially it was internment in concentration camps with the outcome up in the air, with a vague hope of shipping them to Madagascar or palestine, but it later morphed into full extermination. All throughout, Nazi Germany was pushing strong rhetoric of antisemitism and stoking ethnic hatred in the public sphere.
Mr. Xi also told officials to not discriminate against Uighurs and to respect their right to worship. He warned against overreacting to natural friction between Uighurs and Han Chinese, the nation’s dominant ethnic group, and rejected proposals to try to eliminate Islam entirely in China.
“In light of separatist and terrorist forces under the banner of Islam, some people have argued that Islam should be restricted or even eradicated,” he said during the Beijing conference. He called that view “biased, even wrong.”
Brilliant post. This is exactly what I was looking for. The "official" story you hear in the west is so CLEARLY propaganda that I really needed to hear the other side of the story.
Yeah it’s one of those things where you know it’s a crude system that’ll almost certainly scoop up people who don’t need it, but it’s also the least bad available option.
guys imprisoning people who follow a certain religion for "terrorism" is good, now that that's done away with we can get back to our discussion on how terrible gitmo is
I think it's also important to note that the majority of people sent through the re-education system just ended up with vocational training and a job that paid significantly more than what they had before. That alone is probably the biggest driver of de-radicalization. Who would think that improving people's material conditions would lead to them being less inclined to join a radical separatist organization?
Both states say the former though, who are you kidding? You can argue over which one is being more truthful but you're literally just deciding to think critically only about the US's justification and not China's.
you forgot the most important part( at least for me): china says UN can visit the area to investigate any human right abuses in the area. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3122800/china-would-welcome-un-human-rights-council-visit-because. also my criticism. I am in turkey and the goverment spents too much on religious affairs but even with that, we have 1 moskue for around 1000 people. Number of mosques seems more than needed for me but that is another country so I dunno. Also censoring terror attacks might be good against racism but people should have a right to access info of the situation. Racism supression should be done without censorchip
What do you think happens to people in western countries spreading terrorist propaganda? Right they sent them to prison.
Also western intelligence seems to be not opposed to the concept of early deradicalisation, here is an interesting take from Richard Barrett, former director of global counter-terrorism at MI6:
We need to get to potential terrorists before radicalisation, not afterwards
Once an individual has fallen for extremist propaganda, it’s hard to change their mind. Better to spot the early signs
Imagine you could go back in time and have an actual state power in Iraq, instead of the hollow shell US contractors left it with, and implement adequate deradicalisation programmes.
I figured ‘use various measures to target people prone to far right extremism, teach them why that’s wrong, then provide employment, while investing in the region to address the material conditions that led to the unrest’ was the nuanced approach.
I’m sure there are ways it can be improved, and I’m sure their approach has its excesses. I’m just so far unconvinced that there’s any better historic approach to draw upon.
The American South is a region filled with religious extremists, some of whom have already radicalized to the point of committing acts of terrorism. Should we make it its own country and fund their schools to boot? Is that likely to improve the situation or make it worse?
you can make the same argument for Hamas in Palestine and Herzbollah in Lebanon. Occupying territories which do not want to be occupied is imperialism.
Edit: sorry, I read "American South" as in South America rather than Southern USA. In the case of USA, yes an ideal leftwing government in my world would help fund a grassroots leftist resistance for BIPOC rather than forced re-education camps for poor working class white people
sorry, I misread “American South” in the original comment as in South America rather than Southern USA. In the case of USA, yes an ideal leftwing government in my world would help fund a grassroots leftist resistance for BIPOC rather than forced re-education camps for poor working class white people
Likely to improve the situation.
Even if the situation does not improve, their failure (and chance to learn from their mistakes) is now in their own hands. Autonomy and self determination are principles that should be upheld... Wherever we can uphold them.
The CPC could give up and surrender Xinjiang to ISIS. This option condemns millions of people to living under a fundamentalist Islamic State, including many non-Muslims and non-extreme Muslims. This option creates a CIA-aligned state on the border, and jeopardises a key part of the Belt and Road initiative, which is designed to connect landlocked countries for development and geopolitical positioning. This option also threatens the CPC’s legitimacy, as keeping China together is a historical signifier of the Mandate of Heaven.
You dont think "many non-Muslims and non-extreme Muslims" could resist this on a grassroots level - especially if given humanitarian support from China?
"your country" is why I have an issue here. The CPC doesn't own China. The people of China own China and if they have issues with the government their needs should be met.
ur country” is why I have an issue here. The CPC doesn’t own China. The people of China own China and if they have issues with the government their needs should be me
"the party that rules the state of China is not responsible for the condition of the state of China" -ap1
I'm well aware of the problems of religious extremism, I just don't believe that putting people you suspect of having sympathies to extremist groups in internment camps to be an appropriate form of combatting it. Rehabilitation programs should certainly be used and I'd definitely support de-radicalisation efforts (e.g messaging) in local communities, but what China actually seems to be doing (taking people they assume might have sympathies to put them in camps against their will) is just indefensible to me. If you're ok with that, fine, we evidently have different values, but I don't think we can pretend this is the only way of going about this here, and there is good reason why other nations with similar issues have not taken the same approach (granted these aren't perfect but you get the picture).
If they’re anything like other western countries, they already do.
Typically it’s standard to have refugees undergo basic language and civics education before integrating them with the rest of the community. The gold standard is to set them up with subsequent employment.
Typically it’s standard to have refugees undergo basic language and civics education before integrating them with the rest of the community. The gold standard is to set them up with subsequent employment.
That would be nice, many are less fortunate, you could point to the camps in Lesbos, or the general treatment of migrants at the south-eastern EU border where they do illegal pushbacks into Serbia instead of taking care of people seeking refuge. You could point to the endless death in the Mediterranean that is just not being televised anymore.
Europe is an inhumane monster, anybody who says otherwise can fight me.
My apologies. I’m speaking mostly from a New Zealand perspective.
Over here, we’re fortunate enough to have Australia take the bulk of the refugees and put them in offshore concentration camps for us, so we don’t get our hands dirty.
But the few refugees we do take, we put through basic courses for a month or two in a camp before integrating into the wider community.
In all fairness, if you make it to ie Germany and you can proof that you come from a country Germany can’t wiggle out of accepting like Syria, you get basically the treatment you mentioned, but if you only flee from poverty in ie Serbia(not part of EU) they send you the fuck back no matter if you’ll end up on the street.
I just wanted to point out what hypocrites we are in Europe. But it seems that, at least your neighbors, are not much different than us.
Uyghurs aren't refugees though. Even if the response is better than the US, it's with taking a critical look at practices that may result in cultural assimilation, a rise in racism against a minority group, and leave a lot of room for individual cases of abuse.
It's not disingenuous because there is significant evidence that the reasons are sincere, as outlined in the original comment. What's your response to the terrorism problem in the region?
That authoritarian governments have used terrorism as a catch-all to pursue their twisted ends before and continue to do so in <not China> even today? Secessionists and militants are consistently branded as brainwashed or outright recruited terrorists by administrations, their agents, and their sympathizers when their power is challenged.
Fine, let's concede that the stated motives are real and legitimate. Is everyone just fine with re-education and cultural assimilation? You deserve freedom only as long as you toe the party/state line? And this is acceptable to people because their goals apparently align? Forgive me for I have libposted but that doesn't sit well with me. Today it's ISIS, who's to say what reason it is tomorrow? I understand these are concrete problems that need to be dealt with one way or the other but the idea of a state having the power to do that is not something I can support, maybe even critically.
My final question is that in a country with a press situation as warped as China, even if it is for national security reasons, how does one establish credibility of a source, external or internal? Because I'm not convinced even by the media in supposedly more "free" and "democratic" countries.
I don't know, even reading my comment now feels like I'm approaching this in bad faith but I don't know what it will take to realign my value system to such an extent that any of this is acceptable. You can ask me to post hog or reply with pigpoopballs, I guess. I'll go through the other comments here on my own time too.
I kind of feel like that's a slippery slope because it can be flipped on you just as easily, the only difference being who is in power. But I understand where you're coming from.
Is everyone just fine with re-education and cultural assimilation? You deserve freedom only as long as you toe the party/state line? And this is acceptable to people because their goals apparently align? Forgive me for I have libposted but that doesn’t sit well with me. Today it’s ISIS, who’s to say what reason it is tomorrow?
I can’t tell you who it will be tomorrow, but yesterday it was Pu Yi, the last emperor of China. Rather than executing him and all his relatives, like the Bolsheviks did to the Romanovs, the CPC reformed him and had him live as a gardener.
but the idea of a state having the power to do that is not something I can support, maybe even critically.
The 2009 Urumqi riots were triggered when news of a few Uyghurs working outside of Xinjiang being murdered by a mob of Han over a misunderstanding made its way back.
The Uyghur populace killed hundreds of Han on the streets, encouraged and coordinated in part by an unfiltered Facebook.
The Han populace prepares to mobilise and fight back, but was stopped by the police.
I’m telling you this to suggest that the inclinations of the masses might not be the best mechanisms to rely on for resolving ethnic tensions and right wing radicalisation.
My final question is that in a country with a press situation as warped as China, even if it is for national security reasons, how does one establish credibility of a source, external or internal? Because I’m not convinced even by the media in supposedly more “free” and “democratic” countries.
Chinese media tends to have a different tone to western media. I don’t think it’s inherently less trustworthy, but it’s different. That’s why, in the above post, I keep references to Chinese media to a minimum, and instead rely on western secondary sources, and leaked Chinese primary sources used by western media. It’s not perfect, but it’s about as good as I can get.
I read the post. "Could China's approach be done better? Almost certainly" Says who and per what standards. China's defused the Xinjiang situation already.
Also Obama funded this lol, so progressive!
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-12-05/Fighting-terrorism-in-Xinjiang-MaNLLDtnfq/index.html
It could be done better with more resources. My biggest issue with what I’ve heard of it so far is how crude the metrics for determining vulnerability are, and how one-size-fits-all the programme seems to be.
Now I understand that having a team of psychologically trained Imam to interview every detainee might not be feasible, given resource constraints. But that sort of assessment would be ideal.
Regarding the programme itself, it teaches basic mandarin, civics, and possibly some specific vocational skills. That’s great, but it’s also crude. I’ve heard some relatives of detainees express concern that their relatives weren’t in need of vocational skills, or mandarin. This suggests that the programme isn’t suitable for all people at all levels.
Personally, I’d like to see a family and community driven approach to deradicalisation, rather than a mass-produced one. Again, I get that with limited resources that may not have been feasible.
This is why I called it ‘the most humane response to extremism we’ve seen so far’. I won’t condemn them for the approach taken, but I’m also not so pessimistic as to think that there’s no way to do better.
So you don't like it because its not enough doctrine? People are crying as it is.
I get that with limited resources that may not have been feasible.
So if you understand why its not feasible why do you still complain.
also not so pessimistic as to think that there’s no way to do better.
Uh, you didn't actually propose anything "family and community driven approach rather than a mass produced one" means you want to leave it to individual families and not the state?
Approximately 50% of what you hear is outright propaganda, as we know the CIA’s affiliates churn out. We also see CIA assets pushing narratives on Reddit. The next 25% is poorly researched speculation by an evangelical end-timer, and the final 25% is an accurate description of the PRC’s response to far right, religious terrorism and separatism.
First, let’s just establish using safe, American sources that a bunch of Uyghur people went to fight with ISIS in Syria, then returned. Let’s also establish that there have been consistent terrorist attacks with significant casualties and that the CIA and CIA front-groups have funded and stoked Islamic extremism across the world for geopolitical gain.
Now, we need to consider potential responses.
The CPC could give up and surrender Xinjiang to ISIS. This option condemns millions of people to living under a fundamentalist Islamic State, including many non-Muslims and non-extreme Muslims. This option creates a CIA-aligned state on the border, and jeopardises a key part of the Belt and Road initiative, which is designed to connect landlocked countries for development and geopolitical positioning. This option also threatens the CPC’s legitimacy, as keeping China together is a historical signifier of the Mandate of Heaven.
The next option is the American option. Drone strike, black-site, or otherwise liquidate anyone who could be associated with Islamic extremism. Be liberal in doing so. Make children fear blue skies because of drones. When the orphaned young children grow up, do it all again. You can also throw a literal man-made famine in there if you want.
The final option is the Chinese option. Mass surveillance. Use AI to liberally target anyone who may be at risk of radicalisation for re-education. Teach them the lingua franca of China, Mandarin. Pump money into the region for development. When people finish their time in re-education, set them up with state jobs. Keep the surveillance up. Allow and even celebrate local religious customs, but make sure the leaders are on-side with the party.
Let’s take a moment to distinguish that last approach from that of Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany wanted to exterminate the undesirables. Initially it was internment in concentration camps with the outcome up in the air, with a vague hope of shipping them to Madagascar or palestine, but it later morphed into full extermination. All throughout, Nazi Germany was pushing strong rhetoric of antisemitism and stoking ethnic hatred in the public sphere.
There’s no evidence, including from leaked papers, that the goal of the deradicalisation programme is permanent internment or annihilation of Islam. In fact, the leaked papers have Xi explicitly saying Islam should not be annihilated from China:
As for permanent internment, we know from leaks that the minimum duration of detention is one year — though accounts from ex-detainees suggest that some are released sooner.
Unlike Nazi Germany, there’s no stoking of inter-ethnic hatred or elimination of a specific culture; the CPC actively censors footage from terrorist attacks in China to avoid such an outcome. Xi doesn’t go on TV calling any ethnicity rapists or murderers. Uighur culture is actively celebrated in the media and via tourism. Xinjiang has 24,400 mosques, one per 530 Muslims. That’s three mosques per capita more than their western peers.
Could China’s approach be done better? Almost certainly. Is it the most humane response to extremism we’ve seen so far? That’s for you to decide.
(Reposted from here )
Brilliant post. This is exactly what I was looking for. The "official" story you hear in the west is so CLEARLY propaganda that I really needed to hear the other side of the story.
deleted by creator
It didn't even come from chapo lol, it's copied off of Reddit
Who do you think wrote it on Reddit? 😉
comrade Xi
Nice then! Glad it got popular
deleted by creator
Yeah it’s one of those things where you know it’s a crude system that’ll almost certainly scoop up people who don’t need it, but it’s also the least bad available option.
deleted by creator
o7
guys imprisoning people who follow a certain religion for "terrorism" is good, now that that's done away with we can get back to our discussion on how terrible gitmo is
that comment was me deciding youre infringing on my freedoms
there's a very big difference between "imprisoning muslims because they might be terrorists" and "imprisoning muslims because they follow islam"
I think it's also important to note that the majority of people sent through the re-education system just ended up with vocational training and a job that paid significantly more than what they had before. That alone is probably the biggest driver of de-radicalization. Who would think that improving people's material conditions would lead to them being less inclined to join a radical separatist organization?
Both states say the former though, who are you kidding? You can argue over which one is being more truthful but you're literally just deciding to think critically only about the US's justification and not China's.
you forgot the most important part( at least for me): china says UN can visit the area to investigate any human right abuses in the area. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3122800/china-would-welcome-un-human-rights-council-visit-because. also my criticism. I am in turkey and the goverment spents too much on religious affairs but even with that, we have 1 moskue for around 1000 people. Number of mosques seems more than needed for me but that is another country so I dunno. Also censoring terror attacks might be good against racism but people should have a right to access info of the situation. Racism supression should be done without censorchip
Can't believe 'ISIS existed so we have to put all these Muslims in camps' is an actual take
What do you think happens to people in western countries spreading terrorist propaganda? Right they sent them to prison.
Also western intelligence seems to be not opposed to the concept of early deradicalisation, here is an interesting take from Richard Barrett, former director of global counter-terrorism at MI6:
And why should what western countries do make a difference? Are they the epitome of virtue now?
Also, you're literally engaging in right wing talking points when you describe all the Muslims in the province as terrorists or terrorist sympathisers
I'm not doing that, I don't know where you get that impression, but okay.
Imagine you could go back in time and have an actual state power in Iraq, instead of the hollow shell US contractors left it with, and implement adequate deradicalisation programmes.
Would you do so? Or would you wait a few years, then bomb Raqqa to rubble?
I feel like there's room for nuance between doing whatever the fuck the US did and putting Muslims in camps
I figured ‘use various measures to target people prone to far right extremism, teach them why that’s wrong, then provide employment, while investing in the region to address the material conditions that led to the unrest’ was the nuanced approach.
I’m sure there are ways it can be improved, and I’m sure their approach has its excesses. I’m just so far unconvinced that there’s any better historic approach to draw upon.
If you know of any, please let me know.
leave Xinjiang as an autonomous zone, continue to offer voluntary education and work programs and welcome any refugees to China. Carrot vs stick.
The American South is a region filled with religious extremists, some of whom have already radicalized to the point of committing acts of terrorism. Should we make it its own country and fund their schools to boot? Is that likely to improve the situation or make it worse?
deleted by creator
you can make the same argument for Hamas in Palestine and Herzbollah in Lebanon. Occupying territories which do not want to be occupied is imperialism.
Edit: sorry, I read "American South" as in South America rather than Southern USA. In the case of USA, yes an ideal leftwing government in my world would help fund a grassroots leftist resistance for BIPOC rather than forced re-education camps for poor working class white people
There is a difference between giving the Palestinians their country back vs making a new country to placate religious extremists
It's not "making a new country" it's recognizing autonomy of the people of Xinjiang.
Is the U.S. occupying Mississippi and Alabama?
They should
deleted by creator
yeah the american government needs to fuck off and recognise indigenous sovereignty.
Of Christian extremists in Alabama??
sorry, I misread “American South” in the original comment as in South America rather than Southern USA. In the case of USA, yes an ideal leftwing government in my world would help fund a grassroots leftist resistance for BIPOC rather than forced re-education camps for poor working class white people
Likely to improve the situation. Even if the situation does not improve, their failure (and chance to learn from their mistakes) is now in their own hands. Autonomy and self determination are principles that should be upheld... Wherever we can uphold them.
Do you really think that's what would happen if Xinjiang was given autonomy?
Yes
You dont think "many non-Muslims and non-extreme Muslims" could resist this on a grassroots level - especially if given humanitarian support from China?
So the plan is to slice up your country knowing that a civil war is likely in the breakaway state? This is getting better and better.
"your country" is why I have an issue here. The CPC doesn't own China. The people of China own China and if they have issues with the government their needs should be met.
"the party that rules the state of China is not responsible for the condition of the state of China" -ap1
deleted by creator
Would you say the same about Muslims in Germany? Do you think Germany should be putting all the Muslims in camps?
What evidence is the claim that China is putting all Muslims in camps based on? If you don't mind me asking.
deleted by creator
Good take.
deleted by creator
I would never trust any level of government in the US to humanely run a re-education camp.
deleted by creator
I'm well aware of the problems of religious extremism, I just don't believe that putting people you suspect of having sympathies to extremist groups in internment camps to be an appropriate form of combatting it. Rehabilitation programs should certainly be used and I'd definitely support de-radicalisation efforts (e.g messaging) in local communities, but what China actually seems to be doing (taking people they assume might have sympathies to put them in camps against their will) is just indefensible to me. If you're ok with that, fine, we evidently have different values, but I don't think we can pretend this is the only way of going about this here, and there is good reason why other nations with similar issues have not taken the same approach (granted these aren't perfect but you get the picture).
If they’re anything like other western countries, they already do.
Typically it’s standard to have refugees undergo basic language and civics education before integrating them with the rest of the community. The gold standard is to set them up with subsequent employment.
That would be nice, many are less fortunate, you could point to the camps in Lesbos, or the general treatment of migrants at the south-eastern EU border where they do illegal pushbacks into Serbia instead of taking care of people seeking refuge. You could point to the endless death in the Mediterranean that is just not being televised anymore.
Europe is an inhumane monster, anybody who says otherwise can fight me.
My apologies. I’m speaking mostly from a New Zealand perspective.
Over here, we’re fortunate enough to have Australia take the bulk of the refugees and put them in offshore concentration camps for us, so we don’t get our hands dirty.
But the few refugees we do take, we put through basic courses for a month or two in a camp before integrating into the wider community.
Sorry I didn’t mean to attack you.
In all fairness, if you make it to ie Germany and you can proof that you come from a country Germany can’t wiggle out of accepting like Syria, you get basically the treatment you mentioned, but if you only flee from poverty in ie Serbia(not part of EU) they send you the fuck back no matter if you’ll end up on the street.
I just wanted to point out what hypocrites we are in Europe. But it seems that, at least your neighbors, are not much different than us.
Uyghurs aren't refugees though. Even if the response is better than the US, it's with taking a critical look at practices that may result in cultural assimilation, a rise in racism against a minority group, and leave a lot of room for individual cases of abuse.
Loving the recycling of arguments used by famous humanitarian projects like Myanmar and India's camps
Yeah, except this time they're being used and applied correctly instead of used disingenuously by racist twats. Did you even read the fucking post?
It's not disingenuous because I like the guy saying it.
It's not disingenuous because there is significant evidence that the reasons are sincere, as outlined in the original comment. What's your response to the terrorism problem in the region?
That authoritarian governments have used terrorism as a catch-all to pursue their twisted ends before and continue to do so in <not China> even today? Secessionists and militants are consistently branded as brainwashed or outright recruited terrorists by administrations, their agents, and their sympathizers when their power is challenged.
Fine, let's concede that the stated motives are real and legitimate. Is everyone just fine with re-education and cultural assimilation? You deserve freedom only as long as you toe the party/state line? And this is acceptable to people because their goals apparently align? Forgive me for I have libposted but that doesn't sit well with me. Today it's ISIS, who's to say what reason it is tomorrow? I understand these are concrete problems that need to be dealt with one way or the other but the idea of a state having the power to do that is not something I can support, maybe even critically.
My final question is that in a country with a press situation as warped as China, even if it is for national security reasons, how does one establish credibility of a source, external or internal? Because I'm not convinced even by the media in supposedly more "free" and "democratic" countries.
I don't know, even reading my comment now feels like I'm approaching this in bad faith but I don't know what it will take to realign my value system to such an extent that any of this is acceptable. You can ask me to post hog or reply with pigpoopballs, I guess. I'll go through the other comments here on my own time too.
deleted by creator
I kind of feel like that's a slippery slope because it can be flipped on you just as easily, the only difference being who is in power. But I understand where you're coming from.
I can’t tell you who it will be tomorrow, but yesterday it was Pu Yi, the last emperor of China. Rather than executing him and all his relatives, like the Bolsheviks did to the Romanovs, the CPC reformed him and had him live as a gardener.
The 2009 Urumqi riots were triggered when news of a few Uyghurs working outside of Xinjiang being murdered by a mob of Han over a misunderstanding made its way back.
The Uyghur populace killed hundreds of Han on the streets, encouraged and coordinated in part by an unfiltered Facebook.
The Han populace prepares to mobilise and fight back, but was stopped by the police.
I’m telling you this to suggest that the inclinations of the masses might not be the best mechanisms to rely on for resolving ethnic tensions and right wing radicalisation.
Chinese media tends to have a different tone to western media. I don’t think it’s inherently less trustworthy, but it’s different. That’s why, in the above post, I keep references to Chinese media to a minimum, and instead rely on western secondary sources, and leaked Chinese primary sources used by western media. It’s not perfect, but it’s about as good as I can get.
I really appreciate your insight on this. You've given me a lot to think about.
deleted by creator
Thanks for your reply. Along with a lot of other responses on this post it has given me a lot to look up and think critically about.
A good post until
Mmmnah. The West version of deradicalization is their Drone Programme.
Do you know how we can tell that you didn't read the entire post?
I read the post. "Could China's approach be done better? Almost certainly" Says who and per what standards. China's defused the Xinjiang situation already.
Also Obama funded this lol, so progressive! https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-12-05/Fighting-terrorism-in-Xinjiang-MaNLLDtnfq/index.html
It could be done better with more resources. My biggest issue with what I’ve heard of it so far is how crude the metrics for determining vulnerability are, and how one-size-fits-all the programme seems to be.
Now I understand that having a team of psychologically trained Imam to interview every detainee might not be feasible, given resource constraints. But that sort of assessment would be ideal.
Regarding the programme itself, it teaches basic mandarin, civics, and possibly some specific vocational skills. That’s great, but it’s also crude. I’ve heard some relatives of detainees express concern that their relatives weren’t in need of vocational skills, or mandarin. This suggests that the programme isn’t suitable for all people at all levels.
Personally, I’d like to see a family and community driven approach to deradicalisation, rather than a mass-produced one. Again, I get that with limited resources that may not have been feasible.
This is why I called it ‘the most humane response to extremism we’ve seen so far’. I won’t condemn them for the approach taken, but I’m also not so pessimistic as to think that there’s no way to do better.
Oh so you think its underfunded?
So you don't like it because its not enough doctrine? People are crying as it is.
So if you understand why its not feasible why do you still complain.
Uh, you didn't actually propose anything "family and community driven approach rather than a mass produced one" means you want to leave it to individual families and not the state?