You're 100% percent correct. What China is doing fits the definition of "terrorism." My question is:
Is is using terrorism itself as a means to an end to end terrorism worth it?
Keep in mind that the US reaction to 9/11 can in itself be defined as terrorism for what it did to the other countries. War is a form of terrorism. Perhaps it is much worse than terrorism as terrorism uses small acts of violence to produce a big effect while in war the big effect is the violence itself.
My own personal reaction to what happened with the US is that the war definitely went on for too long and the extension to Iraq was unnecessary. But whether a war was needed in the first place is something I'm unsure about.
Imagine you were there on the day of 9/11. How could you not go to war? The American sentiment was the same at the time... it had to be done. What other course of action is there to take?
What was going on through the minds of the Chinese everytime they saw slaughter after slaughter occur by terrorism on their soil? How could you not? What other course of action is there to take? This is a serious question. What in your mind should have been done instead?
Respectfully, I disagree with the premise and the assertion. Everyone I know was confused about "going to war with Iraq" (again) which will always be at odds with responding to 9/11.
Given the context, he's likely more talking about the immediate response following 9/11. Military action was highly supported following the events of 9/11. There was so much support, in fact, that the president now has the power to send troops to any part of the world without declaring war
> Keep in mind the United States likely killed and harmed much more innocent bystanders with its' own allergic immune response to 9/11. It just didn't happen on our soil. We've crossed the line in the past as well.
Crossing the line while fighting terrorism was not an acceptable action by the USA but I think it's a false equivalency to compare it to forced internment, torture, and reeducation of an entire population.
At least the USA pretended to be discerning about who they went after.
I think it's a fair comparison. The amount of innocent bystanders killed by the the US military will be much more than what happens in concentration camps.
The difference is the wording. War sounds not as bad as re-education and concentration camps. This is because you're use to it. Change the word from war to slaughter, because that is what war is.. slaughter. It's not even an exaggeration... if you've ever seen a bomb or a bullet massacre a human being into a bloody mess, slaughter is a very appropriate word.
When you change the word you'll realize that war and re-education live on relatively the same level of extremism. Perhaps war is even worse than re-education or concentration camps.
The US slaughtered many soldiers and innocent bystanders in Iraq and afghanistan to end terrorism. The Chinese tortured and re-educated many people to end terrorism.
Which is worse?
It's the same.
Extreme precautions were taken to make sure that all killings involved middle easterners. Were the precautions perfect? No. But obviously the killings were kept exclusive to a race.
That is not to say that as atrocious as these actions are, that they can't be successful. There are cases in history where the US has successfully assimilated a different culture. Basically the entire native american population has more or less been assimilated into US culture with some small vestiges of the old ways remaining.
I also agree with you that the US response is stupid for exactly the same reasons. However it is only stupid in retrospect. Bush sent troops into the middle east with the majority support of the American people. He lost that support later or aka the people regretted their emotional response in retrospect.
It is highly likely that if such terrorism attacks occurred on US soil again our reaction would be no different. Immediate armed response and only wisdom in retrospect.
Like the immediate negative response to my post, people react emotionally to situations. They never try to analyze the situation which is always much more complex than it actually appears.
The number of “missing” Uighurs is over a million.
The US tried to justify over a decade of slaughter of terrorists and innocent bystanders abroad as a reaction to one terror attack on US soil.
Don't try to play word games here. None of this is actually justified. All countries are guilty of crimes.
The question I am posing people to consider is this: If several 9/11's happened on american soil. Buildings toppled, hundreds slaughtered by terrorism in multiple events with no end in sight and we find that the origin of these attacks rather than being instigated by one man from abroad is instigated by parts of a cultural community within US soil.
What is the action that should be taken here to completely shut down this problem once and for all?
Not a rhetorical question. I want some serious answers, but at the same time I also know that there is likely no solid answer and every action taken has a compromise.
Also keep in mind this is not a justification of ANY chinese action. None of it is justified.
US response towards Saudi can best be summarized as completely indifferent.
Also by war he likely doesn't mean "official" declaration of war by the vocal cords of the US president.
He likely means a more physical form of war by means using soldiers, bullets and bombs to conduct mass slaughter. That kind of war.
I don't think he's justifying anything. He's questioning the nature of this world where a clear black and white decision is not always possible. He is saying in this case could there be No justifiable action possible?
The hypothetical scenario is likely to help you empathize with the events from the chinese perspective. You cannot relate to the people reacting to terrorism in China. However, by envisioning a similar/equivalent scenario in your own country can possibly help you identify with the situation from their perspective. That is the purpose of the hypothetical.
The question still stands if the posed equivalent situation was happening in America, what is the appropriate response? I don't know how to answer his question, do you?
>Killing millions of people is not a proper response to and isolated terrorist act
Don't play with words here. Millions are missing in concentration camps getting reeducated, this isn't actual genocide. This is not equivalent to sending the military to another country and conducting actual killings. What China is doing is still atrocious but quite different then literal slaughter.
Also it's not a response to one isolated incident. Several terrorism acts with hundreds slaughtered and no end in sight is what is actually going on. I don't think you would call several 9/11's happening on american soil isolated terrorist attacks. Perhaps terrorism attacks in China seem isolated to you but this is not the case to a Chinese person.
Looking at his karma which is barely anything in all accounts likely he has no real account. Also the usage of other accounts is likely a symptom of a post limit. Either he can respond to you with another account, or he can ignore you because he can't respond with the same account. Either way these actions are not sanctioned by the site.
>You keep comparing apples to oranges in order to fabricate an argument. There is no systemic genocide perpetrated by the USA
You can call it whatever you want. There was a sponsoring of troops by the US to slaughter people abroad for over a decade. Mass slaughter in the name of war rather than genocide.
The chinese are not slaughtering people. They are putting them in concentration camps and educating them. Torture, Indoctrination and brainwashing are the more appropriate terms with the accurate sentiment.
So yeah you're not wrong it is in way apples and oranges. Do you end terrorism by slaughtering terrorists? Or do you end terrorism by torturing, brainwashing and indoctrinating them? Pick the apple or the orange.
Oh and in both cases there will be innocent bystanders affected.
Nevertheless, this does not justify the actions of the CCP eradicating a whole culture and it’s people. The argument is still unsubstantiated. No global leaders besides the current POTUS are condemning this behavior either, which is a shame. I can only vote with my wallet.
What action should you take if there are repeated terrorist acts happening in your country where people are slaughtered by the hundreds? You only know the origin of these terror attacks originate from a specific cultural ethnic group, and you know you need to stop the attacks now or the next attack could harm your family.
It's a hard question, but posing a hard question isn't a justification of of the atrocities committed by China. It's more of an illustration of the complexity of the situation and an illustration of the darker capabilities that can erupt from within every individual when the situation is extreme... Anyway the question still stands... what would you do?
The other part of the of the question is to help people rise to a higher level and analyze the full complexity of the situation rather than have a simple minded gut reaction to everything. The world is complex and no single action can really be placed in a "justified" box or an "unjustified" box, yet this is how people think.
How is this a question? “They attacked China with knifes, isn’t China in the right for erasing them out of existence?”
This is the worst argument I have seen on Hacker News.
That was the start of Chinese persecution of the Uyghurs, but the current leadership in China has adopted a broad policy of persecuting racial minorities. I'm not sure what their ultimate motivations are but they are targeting many, if not most, of China's non-Han ethnic groups without regard to whether they pose a terrorism risk or not.
Not really. Barely a handful out of 54 minority groups that accounts for ~2% of the population. Most are left alone because most of minorities are already sinicized and "compatible" with broader Chinese society.
> ultimate motivations
This is really simple confluence of two major policy changes.
1. New minority policy, no more minority privileges like family planning exemptions from 2 child policy. Particular focus on mandarin fluency to integrate into broader society. Uyghur, Tibet, Mongolia etc, this is important because 99% of China operates on Mandarin, those who aren't fluent gets left behind. Above minority populations also have large rural populations whose lifestyles (agrarian, herding etc) are being phased out due to new land use policies regarding agriculture (food security). Which means urbanization, so there's also a lot of rural-urban labour transfer programs to up train people, i.e. the entire vocational training west portray as slave labour has been regular program in many provinces for at least 10 years for millions of rural Han.
2. New religion policy, rather _A_ religion policy. There simply was never a proper framework for regulating religion post CCP, leading to all sorts of drama. Not just in terms of prosecution, but illegal temples and other unregulated schemes. Lot's of tomfoolery in explosive growth of Chinese buddhism. Essentially, regulate religion, religion must have Chinese characteristics and conform to socialism.
Not new policy, always relevant.
3. Groups that participate in 3 evils, separatism, terrorism, religious extremism get stomped: Uyghurs, Tibetans, HK, Taiwan when that comes around.
Basically, stop 3 evils, spread mandarin, control religion, vocational training for ultimate development goal: urbanization and better rural land use. This is inevitable byproduct of Chinese population size + land constraints. Mix and match interventions, if you're a very religious, rural Uyghur who speaks no mandarin and have no employable skills, you get everything. If you're a Tibetan herder, you get some mandarin lessons and vocation training. If you're a Mongolia urbnite, make sure your kids know mandarin.
Do you have a source where I can start reading more about this stuff?
Wow, the balls on that question.
And please tell me your imagined design to "quell all terrorism" uses a blockchain. If so, do tell-- really, no detail is too small.
>And please tell me your imagined design to "quell all terrorism" uses a blockchain. If so, do tell-- really, no detail is too small.
You got big balls too. The Terrorism he talks about involves actual human harm and the mass slaughter of hundreds of people in China.
And here you are trivializing what he's talking about into an insensitive block chain insult. Might as well just call him a "nerd."
I'd say your balls are 100x bigger than his.
The OP's imagined, unspecified design to "quell all terrorism" necessarily rationalizes the actual harm that a primary source specified and had photographed in this article. Digressing from actual harm of a religious minority being sent to "re-education camps" to instead discuss a utopian thought experiment is morally unserious at best.
It is, however, insensitive to bring block chain zealouts into this. I apologize for that.
Op poses a question to help the reader view the action from a more empathic perspective. The goal is to quell all terrorism in the same sense as to prevent all future mass killings. This is the action any country will take.
The utopian thing comes from your misguided thought process. Rather what is being expressed here is an attempt to convey understanding that china's actions are a survival response to end slaughter and terrorism not an attempt to create a utopia.
It is a reflection of your own insensitivity that you those words didn't trigger empathy but rather all you saw was a "utopian thought experiment". To top it off you made a joke about block chain then tried to hide your true nature with a feigned apology. It's clear you don't give a shit either way.
No need to apologize for being insensitive and lacking empathy. You are what you are.
"In July 2009, riots broke out in Xinjiang in response to a violent dispute between Uyghur and Han Chinese workers in a factory and result in over 100 deaths. Following the riots, Uyghur radicals killed dozens of Chinese citizens in coordinated attacks from 2009 to 2016. These included the August 2009 syringe attacks, the 2011 bomb-and-knife attack in Hotan, the March 2014 knife attack in the Kunming railway station, the April 2014 bomb-and-knife attack in the Ürümqi railway station, and the May 2014 car-and-bomb attack in an Ürümqi street market. Several of the attacks were orchestrated by the Turkistan Islamic Party (formerly the East Turkestan Islamic Movement) which has been designated a terrorist organization by several countries including Russia, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States, in addition to the United Nations."
No doubt the efficiency that makes China so effective at arresting the spread of covid also makes atrocities like the concentration camps occur which will no doubt affect many many innocent bystanders. It is questionable whether or not this over-reaction will be effective, but despite this we know that China conducts these atrocities with the goal to end the violence once and for all under any means necessary.
The question is, is a successful quelling of all terrorism worth crossing the line?
Keep in mind the United States likely killed and harmed much more innocent bystanders with its' own allergic immune response to 9/11. It just didn't happen on our soil. We've crossed the line in the past as well.