Look at all these identical articles, many are Reuters sourced, but all of them are quite literally copy and paste the entire state department write ups that Im sure they were instructed to personalize first. Lazy fuckers lol
Reuters US News Yahoo Axios EurActiv DW
Im sure all the rest are the same, but nevertheless... cope and seeeeethe
Love how reddit's response to zero muslim countries going along with this vote is just to enforce the racist "dumb savages" trope and say they sold out their fellow muslims, instead of questioning exactly why no muslim country buys this narrative in the first place
their response is literally just "anyone siding with China has been bought out by China" with literally 0 reflection on the inverse of that
:parenti:
During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum. :parenti::parenti: :parenti::parenti::parenti:
kill all redditors
:stupidpol:
why should we expect indonesia or morocco or wherever else to care? it's not like they have big uyghur populations and I don't expect germans to give much of a shit about christians in oman.
Well Uzbekistan has the second most Uyghurs (after China), and Kazakhstan is also central Asia Muslim country, but they both voted no (not just abstain).
They often vote to condemn Israeli treatment of Palestinians. So (if one believes Xinjiang is being ethnically cleansed), you'd think they'd vote to condemn China's treatment of Uyghurs.
Since no Muslim countries are voting to condemn China, westerners need some explanation other than the simple explanation that the reports of abuse in XJ are greatly exaggerated.