China's list of 48 extremist tendencies

[Novus America]

Even so there are similar human rights rules applying to internal armed conflict.
Just because it is an internal armed conflict does not give you absolute freedom to do anything.

No, my point is that IHL rules of proportionality apply to any military attacks or actions conducted as part of an international or internal 'armed conflict'. But detention facilities are part of civilian law enforcement, not an 'armed conflict', they are a means of preventing future violence and not part and parcel of a wartime military strategy during an armed conflict. Hence, strictly speaking, legally, IHL rules of proportionality don't apply to govern what's happening in Xinjiang. They would govern, say, the Chinese military shelling an Uyghur village or bombing an Uyghur neighbourhood.

Law enforcement actions are not entirely exempt from restrictions either.
But again give numbers. Give evidence this is the best and only way.
Stop making the same unsupported claims over and over.

But there is not point, I am wasting my time.
I know exactly how you will respond.

It is like a broken record.

[Purgatio]

No, my point is that IHL rules of proportionality apply to any military attacks or actions conducted as part of an international or internal 'armed conflict'. But detention facilities are part of civilian law enforcement, not an 'armed conflict', they are a means of preventing future violence and not part and parcel of a wartime military strategy during an armed conflict. Hence, strictly speaking, legally, IHL rules of proportionality don't apply to govern what's happening in Xinjiang. They would govern, say, the Chinese military shelling an Uyghur village or bombing an Uyghur neighbourhood.

Law enforcement actions are not entirely exempt from restrictions either.
But again give numbers. Give evidence this is the best and only way.
Stop making the same unsupported claims over and over.

But there is not point, I am wasting my time.
I know exactly how you will respond.

It is like a broken record.

I've already demonstrated that as a matter of law IHL rules of proportionality don't apply to the re-education facilities in Xinjiang. Since proportionality doesn't apply, there's no need to assess whether the scale of the detention is disproportionate to the lives lost from Uyghur sectarian terrorism.

[Purgatio]

People who are not your race moving into your region =/= 'displacement'. Unless, like the Uyghur extremists, you believe in an ethno-state where an entire piece of land is reserved only for members of a particular ethnic group. Which is what the Turkistan Islamic Party (and, from the sound of it, you as well) support. Excluding people with a different racial background and skin colour from ever entering their land. What a backward and regressive worldview for them to hold.

Clearly this one has not heard of the so-called re-education camps in Xinjiang, and or does not care when one is not allowed to practice their own religion. Not to mention the fact that China already heavily restricts the lives of those of Han ethnicity, one can only gather that the Uyghurs, which would have not presented much of a threat if an autonomous government was set up like the one in Hong Kong, would have it worse.

The whole point of re-education facilities is to remove the cultural parochialism, religious fundamentalism, ethno-supremacist bigotry and other such prejudices in Uyghur culture which encourages their young men to commit racially and religiously motivated violence against innocent Hans in Xinjiang.

[Novus America]

Law enforcement actions are not entirely exempt from restrictions either.
But again give numbers. Give evidence this is the best and only way.
Stop making the same unsupported claims over and over.

But there is not point, I am wasting my time.
I know exactly how you will respond.

It is like a broken record.

I've already demonstrated that as a matter of law IHL rules of proportionality don't apply to the re-education facilities in Xinjiang. Since proportionality doesn't apply, there's no need to assess whether the scale of the detention is disproportionate to the lives lost from Uyghur sectarian terrorism.

IHL includes restrictions on internal conflict too.
But it is not like you care. You said so.

Yeah we get it, anything is justified to crush evil, same garbage.

But FYI, if we are to put people with extremist views in camps, you would among the first to go.
Thankfully we are not advocating that.

[Senkaku]

They are right that the Han are invaders, wrong in conflating Han citizens in Xinjiang with the Chinese government, not necessarily right that the Chinese government must leave (though I wouldn't be opposed to it), and fucking wrong that the only solution is a Final Solution.

Said Final Solution being on the cards on at least two sides: one side doing everything to eliminate not only Islam but the Uyghur identity, the other itching to eradicate Han presence altogether, whether or not each individual played a role in the current nightmare.

All this talk of the Chinese government trying to eliminate Uyghur identity and culture seems totally alarmist and blown out of all proportion.

...really?

Not all the Uyghurs are in these re-education facilities,

Is that the fucking bar? "They're not ALL in concentration camps, so it's fine!"

only those who are likely to commit terrorist attacks against ethnic Han or join groups like the Turkistan Islamic Party.

There are anywhere from 500,000 to 1,500,000 people in these camps. This is not targeted detention of potential extremists.

The Chinese government will not destroy Uyghur culture which will survive and persist in the remaining unimprisoned Uyghurs.

There seem to be fewer and fewer of those with every passing day.

He sees things in black vs white, us vs them, all or nothing zero sum battles.
So you are going to have a hard time reasoning with him.
Because he has reduced his arguments to false dichotomies

Because its how the world works, the Uyghurs have proven themselves tribalistic, showing sustained favourable treatment for their own kind over and above anyone non-Uyghur, especially the Han who are entering the region. Uyghur propaganda promotes an 'us vs. them' idea, seeing fellow Uyghurs as 'natives' and every non-Uyghur and Han individual as an aggressive 'colonist' or 'invader'. I simply recognise human tribalistic thinking for what it is.

I wonder why they might perceive the Han as colonizers... could it have to do with the fact that the Han are colonizing Xinjiang and oppressing the Uyghurs? Who can say! It's just irrational tribalism, though, right?

How on Earth do you propose the Chinese government "leave" Xinjiang if the ethnic Han in Xinjiang don't leave too? You expect the ethnic Hans in Xinjiang to be treated with dignity and respect by an independent Xinjiang ruled by an ethnic Uyghur majority? Did you forget what happened to ethnic Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina when they seceded from SFRY? If you want the Chinese government to 'leave' Xinjiang, then you are supporting the revenge killing and ethnic cleansing of the region against ethnic Han, you can't have it both ways. One will be the inevitable consequence of the other.

Yes. I'm going to have it both ways on this, as nothing precludes a theoretically independent Xinjiang (or even a Xinjiang whose autonomy within the Chinese political system is respected and is not nominal, even if Beijing has final say)

Besides the Communist Party of China and its vast security apparatus and military, of course.

that nevertheless keeps ethnic strife at bay, if the right sort of government is established.

You're kidding yourself. If Xinjiang became independent there'd likely be significant bloodletting or at least a mass exodus. I would bet more on bloodletting, frankly- there's enough Han in the province that they could fight back quite effectively, and if the situation were so unstable that China were already unable to maintain its grip we'd be looking at a fucking dire situation in all likelihood.

the wave of racially-motivated attacks on Han for being Han,

I mean, they're racially motivated, but I think the political connotations are relevant here too- Han presence in Xinjiang is representative of the Han-dominated government's efforts to oppress Uyghurs, and they're lashing out at the targets that are available (namely, the innocent Han civilians who individually are innocent people, but who collectively represent a campaign of colonization and cultural destruction).

One would think the Chinese government of your imagination would be looking to ratchet down racial tensions rather than amp them up further, but that doesn't seem to be the direction Zhongnanhai is looking to go in lol

Punishing those who may or may not support said terrorists is hardly a good idea either, since I imagine that would just push them toward supporting those groups because the government put them in camps and treats practicing their religion (having a beard, wearing a hijab, other things from the list) as extremist behavior.

That bridge has been crossed long ago, the Uyghurs in Xinjiang have demonstrated through their history of violence and ideological extremism that they cannot be reasoned with or appeased. I don't believe the Chinese government will get anywhere trying to appease ethno-supremacists.

You're complaining about Uyghurs stereotyping Han, and then turning around and saying "Uyghurs can't be reasoned with"? I mean, come on.

This is exactly why we're saying you have an us vs. them view of the world. The situation in Xinjiang is complicated, but you are stating things in a way that fits a worldview where the Chinese government have done no wrong and the Uyghurs have done everything wrong.

I'm sure the Chinese government has made mistakes, no one's perfect, but they didn't start this conflict. They didn't start rioting and looting and murdering and butchering people for the colour of their skin or their religion. We must never forget who are the aggressors. For all the Chinese government's faults, they are only acting in defense of the ethnic Han in Xinjiang. If no ethnic Han were being murdered and attacked, none of this would be happening. It's that simple.

Well, I'm glad to hear about the noble efforts of the Chinese government to keep the peace lmfao. Ethnic concentration camps, destruction of cultural centers, and the establishment of the most comprehensive police state in human history certainly seem completely consistent with a government that just wants to protect the Han from the racist Uyghurs, and that definitely doesn't want to erase them and fill the province with Han colonists.

[Iridencia]

These all seem to boil down to, "Don't do anything that would make you doubt the country, help you rise up against the country, or escape the country."

[Senkaku]

there's no need to assess whether the scale of the detention is disproportionate to the lives lost from Uyghur sectarian terrorism

:thonk:

Even so there are similar human rights rules applying to internal armed conflict.
Just because it is an internal armed conflict does not give you absolute freedom to do anything.

No, my point is that IHL rules of proportionality apply to any military attacks or actions conducted as part of an international or internal 'armed conflict'. But detention facilities are part of civilian law enforcement, not an 'armed conflict', they are a means of preventing future violence and not part and parcel of a wartime military strategy during an armed conflict. Hence, strictly speaking, legally, IHL rules of proportionality don't apply to govern what's happening in Xinjiang. They would govern, say, the Chinese military shelling an Uyghur village or bombing an Uyghur neighbourhood.

...so your response is "lol well technically that rule doesn't apply so legally we don't have to think about the problem"...? What a strong moral basis for the repression of an entire people lmao

[Senkaku]

This is Bullshit:
We all saw you going on about how Han deserve to sleep peacefully in their beds but also support throwing innocent Uyghur in concentration camps because they might (and more likely might not commit a crime.

See you cannot just make outrageous claims and expect everyone to believe them.
Saying you are not tribalist does not make it so.

And again the fact terrorism happens does not mean everyone is bad.
But there is no point “debating” when you make outrageous claims without any data to back them.

Only because the persistence of the conflict in Xinjiang over such a long period of time is more than enough evidence that this problem isn't going away any time soon and is the product of more deep-rooted and ingrained sectarian divides in the region.

Divides which the Chinese government seems determined to exacerbate, by both encouraging Han to move to Xinjiang and throwing hundreds of thousands of Uyghurs in concentration camps and establishing an almost-omniscient and highly invasive surveillance and security apparatus across the province. If there were Uyghur fears that the (Han-dominated) Chinese government was encouraging Han colonization of Xinjiang before (which according to you were baseless), it sure seems like those fears are rapidly gaining some validity.

[Purgatio]

I've already demonstrated that as a matter of law IHL rules of proportionality don't apply to the re-education facilities in Xinjiang. Since proportionality doesn't apply, there's no need to assess whether the scale of the detention is disproportionate to the lives lost from Uyghur sectarian terrorism.

IHL includes restrictions on internal conflict too.
But it is not like you care. You said so.

Yeah we get it, anything is justified to crush evil, same garbage.

But FYI, if we are to put people with extremist views in camps, you would among the first to go.
Thankfully we are not advocating that.

I never suggested jailing someone just because they hold extremist views. Context matters, and the context in this case is a certain demographic in Xinjiang has been egged on by ideologically-extremist views into organising into groups like the TIP, with a worldview of religious supremacy and ethnic supremacy that justifies sectarian violence against an entire community of innocent people, simply because of race and religion. Now, the day that Han Chinese-Singaporeans like me start organising into a violent, armed terrorist group filled with other ethnic Han-Singaporeans with a worldview that justifies the murder, rape, butchering, bombing, stabbing of all non-Hans in Singapore, then yes, maybe you'd actually have a point. But no, I never suggested jailing anyone for 'holding extremist views'. Its that, plus a wider social context of persistent, inerasable sectarian violence and racial/religious terrorism lasting over decades.

[Purgatio]

Only because the persistence of the conflict in Xinjiang over such a long period of time is more than enough evidence that this problem isn't going away any time soon and is the product of more deep-rooted and ingrained sectarian divides in the region.

Divides which the Chinese government seems determined to exacerbate, by both encouraging Han to move to Xinjiang and throwing hundreds of thousands of Uyghurs in concentration camps and establishing an almost-omniscient and highly invasive surveillance and security apparatus across the province. If there were Uyghur fears that the (Han-dominated) Chinese government was encouraging Han colonization of Xinjiang before (which according to you were baseless), it sure seems like those fears are rapidly gaining some validity.

Xinjiang is one of the poorest regions in all of China, so-called 'Han colonisation' is an attempt by the Chinese government to encourage highly-skilled and highly-educated labour from the coastlands to migrate into an impoverished, under-developed region of China and improve the quality of the workforce there. That's how labour mobility should work in any efficient market. So no, the fears have zero validity, these are just ethno-supremacist and tribalistic Uyghurs mistaking a policy of economic and labour development for 'colonisation', which is ridiculous and absurd. If not for all this political and religious violence, the Chinese government would be treating ethnic Hans and Uyghurs equally in the region.

[Novus America]

IHL includes restrictions on internal conflict too.
But it is not like you care. You said so.

Yeah we get it, anything is justified to crush evil, same garbage.

But FYI, if we are to put people with extremist views in camps, you would among the first to go.
Thankfully we are not advocating that.

I never suggested jailing someone just because they hold extremist views. Context matters, and the context in this case is a certain demographic in Xinjiang has been egged on by ideologically-extremist views into organising into groups like the TIP, with a worldview of religious supremacy and ethnic supremacy that justifies sectarian violence against an entire community of innocent people, simply because of race and religion. Now, the day that Han Chinese-Singaporeans like me start organising into a violent, armed terrorist group filled with other ethnic Han-Singaporeans with a worldview that justifies the murder, rape, butchering, bombing, stabbing of all non-Hans in Singapore, then yes, maybe you'd actually have a point. But no, I never suggested jailing anyone for 'holding extremist views'. Its that, plus a wider social context of persistent, inerasable sectarian violence and racial/religious terrorism lasting over decades.

You provide zero context because you refuse to provide any numbers.
And you said anything is justified to prevent one crime.
Regardless of the proportionality.
So yeah, you could end up on the receiving end.
I know you do not believe it, but that is how this stuff ends.

[Purgatio]

Well, I'm glad to hear about the noble efforts of the Chinese government to keep the peace lmfao. Ethnic concentration camps, destruction of cultural centers, and the establishment of the most comprehensive police state in human history certainly seem completely consistent with a government that just wants to protect the Han from the racist Uyghurs, and that definitely doesn't want to erase them and fill the province with Han colonists.

Ethnic concentration camps? More like re-education facilities as part of a counter-terrorist programme, its not the Chinese governments fault that all the terrorist attacks in Xinjiang have been from ethnic Uyghurs, making them demographically more likely to be sympathisers of groups like the TIP. The 'comprehensive police state' you referred to is present in all of China so its clearly a racially-neutral policy. And a previous comment of mine already dealt with this conspiracy of 'Han colonisation', of which there is no evidence of.

[Purgatio]

I never suggested jailing someone just because they hold extremist views. Context matters, and the context in this case is a certain demographic in Xinjiang has been egged on by ideologically-extremist views into organising into groups like the TIP, with a worldview of religious supremacy and ethnic supremacy that justifies sectarian violence against an entire community of innocent people, simply because of race and religion. Now, the day that Han Chinese-Singaporeans like me start organising into a violent, armed terrorist group filled with other ethnic Han-Singaporeans with a worldview that justifies the murder, rape, butchering, bombing, stabbing of all non-Hans in Singapore, then yes, maybe you'd actually have a point. But no, I never suggested jailing anyone for 'holding extremist views'. Its that, plus a wider social context of persistent, inerasable sectarian violence and racial/religious terrorism lasting over decades.

You provide zero context because you refuse to provide any numbers.
And you said anything is justified to prevent one crime.
Regardless of the proportionality.
So yeah, you could end up on the receiving end.
I know you do not believe it, but that is how this stuff ends.

As I've mentioned before, proportionality is about weighing and balancing the degree to which terrorism/crime is ameliorated versus the degree of abrogation of civil liberties, which I don't support. But whatever measure is proposed still needs to be efficacious in and of itself (independent of any balance against a countervailing interest like liberty or freedom). If there's no crime or terrorist problem to be solved in Singapore regarding Han Chinese Singaporeans, then there's no need to propose any policy to alleviate a non-existent problem, proportionate or disproportionate.

You are mistaking proportionality for efficacy. Those are two totally different things.

[Sada Difrium]

Well, I'm glad to hear about the noble efforts of the Chinese government to keep the peace lmfao. Ethnic concentration camps, destruction of cultural centers, and the establishment of the most comprehensive police state in human history certainly seem completely consistent with a government that just wants to protect the Han from the racist Uyghurs, and that definitely doesn't want to erase them and fill the province with Han colonists.

Ethnic concentration camps? More like re-education facilities as part of a counter-terrorist programme, its not the Chinese governments fault that all the terrorist attacks in Xinjiang have been from ethnic Uyghurs, making them demographically more likely to be sympathisers of groups like the TIP. The 'comprehensive police state' you referred to is present in all of China so its clearly a racially-neutral policy. And a previous comment of mine already dealt with this conspiracy of 'Han colonisation', of which there is no evidence of.

It's also not the Uyghurs' fault that they were born in a country that does not respect their freedom of worship. Of course, since this is a black and white world that you claim we live in, their only solution is terrorist attacks, which means they are completely justified in their actions.

[Purgatio]

Ethnic concentration camps? More like re-education facilities as part of a counter-terrorist programme, its not the Chinese governments fault that all the terrorist attacks in Xinjiang have been from ethnic Uyghurs, making them demographically more likely to be sympathisers of groups like the TIP. The 'comprehensive police state' you referred to is present in all of China so its clearly a racially-neutral policy. And a previous comment of mine already dealt with this conspiracy of 'Han colonisation', of which there is no evidence of.

It's also not the Uyghurs' fault that they were born in a country that does not respect their freedom of worship. Of course, since this is a black and white world that you claim we live in, their only solution is terrorist attacks, which means they are completely justified in their actions.

I already responded to this earlier and you didn't address it. If other religious groups in China did not resort to and have not resorted to terrorist violence in response to have their religious freedoms curtailed during the Cultural Revolution and after, then clearly Uyghur extremists aren't being 'forced' into becoming terrorists in any cognisable sense of the word.

[Novus America]

You provide zero context because you refuse to provide any numbers.
And you said anything is justified to prevent one crime.
Regardless of the proportionality.
So yeah, you could end up on the receiving end.
I know you do not believe it, but that is how this stuff ends.

As I've mentioned before, proportionality is about weighing and balancing the degree to which terrorism/crime is ameliorated versus the degree of abrogation of civil liberties, which I don't support. But whatever measure is proposed still needs to be efficacious in and of itself (independent of any balance against a countervailing interest like liberty or freedom). If there's no crime or terrorist problem to be solved in Singapore regarding Han Chinese Singaporeans, then there's no need to propose any policy to alleviate a non-existent problem, proportionate or disproportionate.

You are mistaking proportionality for efficacy. Those are two totally different things.

I bet you fall into some demographic that commits more crimes than others.
For example young males commit more crimes than other demographics.

And you have offered zero evidence of efficacy either.

Throwing all ethnic Chinese in the US in jail would reduce spying by China.
It would be wrong still.

And you cannot claim “this is different” because any action that stops any crime is justified according to you.

[Purgatio]

As I've mentioned before, proportionality is about weighing and balancing the degree to which terrorism/crime is ameliorated versus the degree of abrogation of civil liberties, which I don't support. But whatever measure is proposed still needs to be efficacious in and of itself (independent of any balance against a countervailing interest like liberty or freedom). If there's no crime or terrorist problem to be solved in Singapore regarding Han Chinese Singaporeans, then there's no need to propose any policy to alleviate a non-existent problem, proportionate or disproportionate.

You are mistaking proportionality for efficacy. Those are two totally different things.

I bet you fall into some demographic that commits more crimes than others.
For example young males commit more crimes than other demographics.

And you have offered zero evidence of efficacy either.

Throwing all ethnic Chinese in the US in jail would reduce spying by China.
It would be wrong still.

And you cannot claim “this is different” because any action that stops any crime is justified according to you.

I also said that the situation in Xinjiang was an extreme and exceptional circumstance, given that it involves a decades-long sectarian conflict fuelled by persistent ethnic and religious terrorism.

[Sada Difrium]

It's also not the Uyghurs' fault that they were born in a country that does not respect their freedom of worship. Of course, since this is a black and white world that you claim we live in, their only solution is terrorist attacks, which means they are completely justified in their actions.

I already responded to this earlier and you didn't address it. If other religious groups in China did not resort to and have not resorted to terrorist violence in response to have their religious freedoms curtailed during the Cultural Revolution and after, then clearly Uyghur extremists aren't being 'forced' into becoming terrorists in any cognisable sense of the word.

I am saying that, in your framework of a world where China must take the nuclear option for the good of its citizens, it is only logical that the Uyghurs resort to their own nuclear option, terrorism. In the real world, neither has to. However, since we're on the topic of not addressing responses, how about you address my response?

And I responded to your comment already. If lack of religious freedom were the root cause of the violence, then all religious groups that have suffered repression in the past (Christians, ancestral worship, folk religions) would be committing religious violence. That they are not proves your assumption is unwarranted and something else besides lack of religious freedoms is the reason for all the Uyghur violence.

It's not the root cause of the violence, the general oppression of the Uyghurs is. Religious freedom is the first step towards improving relations with the people in Xinjiang.

[Senkaku]

Well, I'm glad to hear about the noble efforts of the Chinese government to keep the peace lmfao. Ethnic concentration camps, destruction of cultural centers, and the establishment of the most comprehensive police state in human history certainly seem completely consistent with a government that just wants to protect the Han from the racist Uyghurs, and that definitely doesn't want to erase them and fill the province with Han colonists.

Ethnic concentration camps? More like re-education facilities as part of a counter-terrorist programme, its not the Chinese governments fault that all the terrorist attacks in Xinjiang have been from ethnic Uyghurs, making them demographically more likely to be sympathisers of groups like the TIP.

"con·cen·tra·tion camp
/ˌkänsənˈtrāSHən ˈˌkamp/
noun
a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area"

They're literally concentration camps by definition (even if they are for the purpose of "re-education", aka CCP indoctrination), and they exclusively hold Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and other Turkic Muslim ethnic minorities (who I and many others would argue are being persecuted, but even if they aren't, those are still the people in the camps), so they literally are ethnic concentration camps. They just happen to also be part of the Chinese government's efforts to eradicate political resistance and Uyghur culture in Xinjiang.

The 'comprehensive police state' you referred to is present in all of China so its clearly a racially-neutral policy.

Convenience police stations, wifi sniffers, mandatory submission of biometric data (including voice samples and iris scans), banning WhatsApp, armed checkpoints (which happen to stop Uyghurs and other Turkic minorities, while letting Han citizens pass), and Party cadres making "homestays" are not present in all of China lmfao.

And a previous comment of mine already dealt with this conspiracy of 'Han colonisation', of which there is no evidence of.

When you start blowing up ancient mosques, leveling historic districts, encouraging people of the nation's dominant ethnicity to go to a certain region, and set up a security apparatus to suppress that region's existing minority population, that sure seems like colonization to me.

Divides which the Chinese government seems determined to exacerbate, by both encouraging Han to move to Xinjiang and throwing hundreds of thousands of Uyghurs in concentration camps and establishing an almost-omniscient and highly invasive surveillance and security apparatus across the province. If there were Uyghur fears that the (Han-dominated) Chinese government was encouraging Han colonization of Xinjiang before (which according to you were baseless), it sure seems like those fears are rapidly gaining some validity.

Xinjiang is one of the poorest regions in all of China, so-called 'Han colonisation' is an attempt by the Chinese government to encourage highly-skilled and highly-educated labour from the coastlands to migrate into an impoverished, under-developed region of China and improve the quality of the workforce there.

Highly-skilled and highly-educated labor from the coastal provinces... where the population happens to be overwhelmingly Han.

That's how labour mobility should work in any efficient market.

Well, I'm glad to know the PRC is so fucking committed to market efficiency. Tell me more about their zombie SOEs lol

So no, the fears have zero validity, these are just ethno-supremacist and tribalistic Uyghurs mistaking a policy of economic and labour development for 'colonisation', which is ridiculous and absurd.

Well, as the Han come, the Chinese government is establishing a panopticon-like police state, throwing them in camps, and demolishing their cultural heritage, so there might be some validity.

If not for all this political and religious violence, the Chinese government would be treating ethnic Hans and Uyghurs equally in the region.

The Chinese government would be doing the same thing it's always done- trying to crush separatists, and thus encouraging them to fight harder. In this case there happens to be reinforcing social cleavages along racial, political, and religious lines rather than cross-cutting ones, that's all.

IHL includes restrictions on internal conflict too.
But it is not like you care. You said so.

Yeah we get it, anything is justified to crush evil, same garbage.

But FYI, if we are to put people with extremist views in camps, you would among the first to go.
Thankfully we are not advocating that.

I never suggested jailing someone just because they hold extremist views.

Firstly, you're gonna have to define what "extremist views" means- not drinking alcohol? Owning welding equipment? What counts?

Secondly, you said "This obsession with 'proportionality' is complete nonsense, all that matters is the pursuit of national and internal security and the restoration of law and order to the Xinjiang region." Which sure sounds like getting on board with the Chinese government's policy of jailing people for holding "extremist views."

Context matters, and the context in this case is a certain demographic in Xinjiang has been egged on by ideologically-extremist views

And, you know, massive repression by the Han-dominated Chinese state.

into organising into groups like the TIP, with a worldview of religious supremacy and ethnic supremacy that justifies sectarian violence against an entire community of innocent people, simply because of race and religion.

No one is suggesting that Han civilians deserve to be killed. We're suggesting that the Uyghur people shouldn't be obliterated as a response to some terrorist attacks.

Now, the day that Han Chinese-Singaporeans like me start organising into a violent, armed terrorist group filled with other ethnic Han-Singaporeans with a worldview that justifies the murder, rape, butchering, bombing, stabbing of all non-Hans in Singapore, then yes, maybe you'd actually have a point.

You're already on board with jailing and torturing all non-Hans in Xinjiang, it seems, if you think it'll give the Han people there security. Who's to say you won't someday transplant the same views onto Singapore?

Again:

This obsession with 'proportionality' is complete nonsense, all that matters is the pursuit of national and internal security and the restoration of law and order to the Xinjiang region. The innocent and peaceful Han population of Xinjiang deserves to feel safe in their beds, especially when they have done nothing wrong.

You're saying that any policy is justified in the pursuit of internal security, and that it's fine to throw proportionality to the winds. If the Chinese government decided gas chambers were necessary to make sure they could protect their Han citizens and maintain national security, that wouldn't be proportional, even if it might be effective- would you be on board?

But no, I never suggested jailing anyone for 'holding extremist views'.

But you support the Chinese government's policy of doing so, on the basis that it protects Han citizens.

Its that, plus a wider social context of persistent, inerasable sectarian violence and racial/religious terrorism lasting over decades.

And how do you think that ethnic concentration camps, implementation of a highly repressive surveillance regime, and the demolition of cultural monuments is going to impact that history of sectarian violence? Do you think the Uyghurs are going to say, "ah, well, nothing to worry about now that I've spent a few months in the camp or had a Chinese spy living in my home"? It seems to me it might incline them towards greater radicalization, which will then be used by Zhongnanhai to justify increasingly repressive policies, until one day we all wake up and Xinjiang is bright and peaceful and full of nice friendly Han who are more accepting of the Han-dominated government that actually somewhat reflects their interests?

[Novus America]

I bet you fall into some demographic that commits more crimes than others.
For example young males commit more crimes than other demographics.

And you have offered zero evidence of efficacy either.

Throwing all ethnic Chinese in the US in jail would reduce spying by China.
It would be wrong still.

And you cannot claim “this is different” because any action that stops any crime is justified according to you.

I also said that the situation in Xinjiang was an extreme and exceptional circumstance, given that it involves a decades-long sectarian conflict fuelled by persistent ethnic and religious terrorism.

Irrelevant.
If Proportionality does not matter extremity of the circumstances does not matter.
If any action that stops any crime is automatically justified then it does not matter.
The most extreme action can be used against the most minor crime if proportionality is irrelevant.
You cannot have it both ways.

And yes you said it was extreme. But refuse to provide any evidence that it actually was.
And no “there is a conflict that has been going on a while and killed some people” is not evidence.
That happens a lot of places.

[Purgatio]

I already responded to this earlier and you didn't address it. If other religious groups in China did not resort to and have not resorted to terrorist violence in response to have their religious freedoms curtailed during the Cultural Revolution and after, then clearly Uyghur extremists aren't being 'forced' into becoming terrorists in any cognisable sense of the word.

I am saying that, in your framework of a world where China must take the nuclear option for the good of its citizens, it is only logical that the Uyghurs resort to their own nuclear option, terrorism. In the real world, neither has to. However, since we're on the topic of not addressing responses, how about you address my response?

It's not the root cause of the violence, the general oppression of the Uyghurs is. Religious freedom is the first step towards improving relations with the people in Xinjiang.

You've got the cause and effect mixed up, the 'oppression' of the Uyghurs today is the direct result of all the violence we've seen from the TIP and other such groups. Chinese crackdowns in Xinjiang have always followed Uyghur violence, like the crakdown that occurred following the 2009 Urumqi riots. Your argument would be valid if it were Chinese oppression that causes Uyghur violence. But as I've already pointed out, if Chinese oppression is to blame for Uyghur violence then all other religious groups in China which were oppressed during the Cultural Revolution would now be militant terrorist groups, but they are not, clearly showing this is a problem pathologically unique to the Uyghur community.

[Senkaku]

You are mistaking proportionality for efficacy. Those are two totally different things.

Efficiency is not infinitely justifiable. Proportionality must be considered. America could've nuked Tora Bora into a puddle of radioactive glass in 2001 to make sure we got bin Laden- it would've been effective, but very disproportionate.

I'd also dispute that such a regime of repression is efficient- in the long run, it's going to increase tensions in the region and lead to greater radicalization of the Uyghur population. If you throw someone who's not political into a concentration camp, they will probably become political, and if you throw someone political in they may become radical.

[Sada Difrium]

I am saying that, in your framework of a world where China must take the nuclear option for the good of its citizens, it is only logical that the Uyghurs resort to their own nuclear option, terrorism. In the real world, neither has to. However, since we're on the topic of not addressing responses, how about you address my response?

You've got the cause and effect mixed up, the 'oppression' of the Uyghurs today is the direct result of all the violence we've seen from the TIP and other such groups. Chinese crackdowns in Xinjiang have always followed Uyghur violence, like the crakdown that occurred following the 2009 Urumqi riots. Your argument would be valid if it were Chinese oppression that causes Uyghur violence. But as I've already pointed out, if Chinese oppression is to blame for Uyghur violence then all other religious groups in China which were oppressed during the Cultural Revolution would now be militant terrorist groups, but they are not, clearly showing this is a problem pathologically unique to the Uyghur community.

Let me say it again: Religious freedom is the first step towards improving relations with the people in Xinjiang. It doesn't matter who started it or whether the Uyghurs deserve it. You asked me pages ago to propose a solution, and I gave you one. Since then, you have not addressed why it would not work, only why you don't like it.

[Senkaku]

You've got the cause and effect mixed up, the 'oppression' of the Uyghurs today is the direct result of all the violence we've seen from the TIP and other such groups. Chinese crackdowns in Xinjiang have always followed Uyghur violence, like the crakdown that occurred following the 2009 Urumqi riots. Your argument would be valid if it were Chinese oppression that causes Uyghur violence. But as I've already pointed out, if Chinese oppression is to blame for Uyghur violence then all other religious groups in China which were oppressed during the Cultural Revolution would now be militant terrorist groups, but they are not, clearly showing this is a problem pathologically unique to the Uyghur community.

Let me say it again: Religious freedom is the first step towards improving relations with the people in Xinjiang. It doesn't matter who started it or whether the Uyghurs deserve it. You asked me pages ago to propose a solution, and I gave you one. Since then, you have not addressed why it would not work, only why you don't like it.

related on the religious freedom thing and the argument abt colonization- here's some stuff abt mosque demolitions

[Sada Difrium]

Let me say it again: Religious freedom is the first step towards improving relations with the people in Xinjiang. It doesn't matter who started it or whether the Uyghurs deserve it. You asked me pages ago to propose a solution, and I gave you one. Since then, you have not addressed why it would not work, only why you don't like it.

related on the religious freedom thing and the argument abt colonization- here's some stuff abt mosque demolitions

Right, I do agree that China is at fault for starting the conflict and that the Uyghurs deserve religious freedom. I'm just saying that neither of those have any bearing on whether granting religious freedom would reduce violence in the region without having to resort to authoritarian methods.