Washington Post losing its mind over the fact that Singapore is not as rabidly anti-China as the US wishes

www.washingtonpost.com /world/interactive/2023/singapore-china-news-influence-lianhe-zaobao/

You're viewing a single thread.

52 comments

I wouldn’t say losing its mind. Definitely some click bait title there on your end. It just goes into how the Chinese ethnic population in Singapore, which is a city state in Malaysia, are aligning more with the Chinese Communist party. An example is not believing in human rights abuse against the Uyghurs in China. This divergence will lead to unrest ultimately, and will impact the successes of the city state. I debated even posting but most people won’t read the article and just go based on your title, which is inflammatory.
- An example is not believing in human rights abuse against the Uyghurs in China.
  Jesus. How is any grown adult still believing in this ridiculous claptrap?
  
  Am I out of the loop? I’ve definitely not kept up with the situation but I thought there was human abuse stuff happening with the Uyghurs in China?
  
  You were in the wrong loop. It was a hoax. Fake news, propaganda, whatever you want to call it.
  After the US tried to radicalise Uyghurs in Xingjiang, the Chinese government responded not with bullets or bombs like the US wanted, but with an education programme that has now ended. Everyone is prospering in Xinjiang. Multiple independent visits have taken place and nothing was ever found. The only witnesses all turned out to be CIA. Like this funny example.
  Get better loops. You should start trusting the media waaay less, especially about geopolitics.
  
  Whoa I definitely was out of the loop. Thanks for actually discussing with me and sharing some insight. You’re the only so far!
  
  No worries, I understand! People can be defensive. I just honestly don’t know that much, and appreciate a dialog.
  
  Sounds like a plan!
  
  With the influx of people to Lemmy instances from Reddit, existing members will tend to be a bit defensive when state department lines get regurgitated (even when the same start department has walked back on some of its claims). Even moreso when many of these new users come in to wreck, hurl insults and then leave lol.
  Here's a few more summaries with linked sources if you're interested. The most recent extremist attacks were in 2014 where dozens of innocents were murdered. While they could be found with a quick search, they barely have any views as it undermines the whole narrative.
  https://lemmygrad.ml/post/1028893
  https://archive.md/sYD5q
  Some of the reasons why the US intelligence agencies have so much interest in turning the region into an extremist hotbed are:
  Looking on the map, the region is a critical part of the OBOR, which the "sea based powers" in the West want to destroy for their own business interests
  Similar to Afghanistan (which is geographically close to both Russia and PRC), it would create an endless supply of extremists to create futher ethnic violence and destabilisation within the whole mainland
  
  That’s crazy, ya all I know is what is broadcasted to me. The US does have a history of causing unrest in other countries for sure. I’m a new user as well but I won’t walk away from a discussion. That’s why I’m here, for a dialog with people, not just endless scrolling.
  
  No problem, I find most people get very angry with me if you tell them this genocide never happened. It's a bit strange.
  There's a lot more info here.
  
  I can hardly believe that only 3 years ago enough redditors were able to see through the Xinjiang shit that most of the comments were ripping into Rushan Abbas. Did the feds really shape the narrative that fast?
  
  I think what happened was that feds felt too powerful after the reception of their propaganda wave and in a foolhardy step thought that having a literal CIA employee doing public facing AMAs would not fire back.
  They should have stuck to pseudo-academic reports by Zenz, UN reports with unverified and unnamed interviewees, armchair analysis of satellite images and so on where there is plausible deniability. But they got ahead of themselves.
  
  "human abuse stuff" you sure sound like you know what you're talking about
  
  Thanks for clearing that up. Super helpful.
  
  I was hoping you would elaborate on wtf that means exactly, and what your source is
  
  Source: news places /s
- the C²P abused those Uyghurs so much that their population grew
  
  gENoCiDe
  
  (2C)P*
  
  The source is the article you posted lol Edit: not you, what OP posted. Shows you didn’t even read the article.
  
  HANGMAN'S GAMBIT
  I --de i- t-e f--k -p
  
  If you can find a source for your claim that does not reference:
  
  Adrian Zenz The CIA. Radio Free Asia. Rushan Abbas.
  you failed the challenge, time for your punishment!!
  
  CBT is back on the menu boys
  
  The quote is about a claim you made beyond the scope of the article lol. Shows you didn't even read the comment.
- An example is not believing in human rights abuse against the Uyghurs in China.
  How would you characterize the Iraq War, which the U.S. started on a totally fabricated premise, and during which the U.S. indiscriminately killed (by low estimates) hundreds of thousands of civilians? If you don't think that's at least as bad as whatever you believe is happening in Xinjiang, you're working from a heavy bias.
  Why would I trust a country that's just spent the last few decades killing Muslims all over the globe to suddenly give a shit about Muslims in China? Why would I trust them over all the Muslim-majority countries who are fine with (or even support) China's policies in Xinjiang?
  
  I mean, yeah you’re totally right. However, it is definitely off topic. I know I’m being down voted to oblivion. I did make the correlation of human rights violations to the Uyghurs, whom were not specifically listed. The article left it at just violations. Either way, it’s a very semantic argument. I was just pointing out that a large news publisher wasn’t “freaking out” and rather just reporting some drama happening on the other side of the globe. I did get lots of replies on an otherwise empty comment section, so at least there’s engagement. Which is why I’m here.
  
  How is pointing out bias and the absurdity of trusting the U.S. over Muslim-majority countries off topic in a thread about anti-China dogma in the U.S.?
- Singapore isn’t a “city-state” in Malaysia, it was booted out of Malaysia to fulfill the comprador Malay feudal classes interests here in Malaysia,
  I know nothing about this subject. Is it sort of like what happened with Hong Kong and/or Macau?
  
  Thank you!
  wanted
  If reunification has become less popular, is there a general cause of this that wouldn't require you writing out a treatise for the sake of an offhand question?
  
  Makes perfect sense, thank you. I would have had no problem with an explanation of any length (and the forum might be interested in you making a post on this topic at some point) but I respect your time and patience.
  
  I come from a family of academics, and there's a word of advice that I remember hearing said to others since I was a kid "If you want to write a thesis, you will always feel that you have not done enough research. Eventually, you need to actually write despite that feeling." Perhaps you could include the books you haven't read as a little "further reading" section.
  
  Post Independence from Britain Singapore wanted to federate with Malaysia but Malaysia kicked them out because they didn't want a city full of Chinese and also because they were afraid of Lee Kuan Yew.
  
  Well you seem very well informed, can you explain to me the difference between a city state, and a nation? Is it size? Is it governmental structure? Is it historical?
  
  No that was a great response, thank you. So basically they are different countries. Is the popular thought for them to rejoin? Sorry if I’m assuming you know. Honestly SEA is my weakest point for understanding cultural norms.

52 comments