China's 'War on Terror' uproots families, leaked data shows

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

…….The database obtained by The Associated Press profiles the internment of 311 individuals with relatives abroad and lists information on more than 2,000 of their relatives, neighbors and friends. Each entry includes the detainee’s name, address, national identity number, detention date and location, along with a detailed dossier on their family, religious and neighborhood background, the reason for detention, and a decision on whether or not to release them. Issued within the past year, the documents do not indicate which government department compiled them or for whom.

Taken as a whole, the information offers the fullest and most personal view yet into how Chinese officials decided who to put into and let out of detention camps, as part of a massive crackdown that has locked away more than a million ethnic minorities, most of them Muslims.

The database emphasizes that the Chinese government focused on religion as a reason for detention — not just political extremism, as authorities claim, but ordinary activities such as praying, attending a mosque, or even growing a long beard. It also shows the role of family: People with detained relatives are far more likely to end up in a camp themselves, uprooting and criminalizing entire families like Emer’s in the process.

To read more:

https://apnews.com/890b79866c9eb1451ddf67b121272ee2

[Cartoonist]

1. The China solution

Just deport the Muslims to India. The Hindus will take care of them.

https://apnews.com/fc33669f25c98b0762917ea093f21916

Sometimes religion is its own cure.

[guillaumeb]

2. The Chinese Government should show how tolerant the non-theists can be.

And set an example. Instead, like authoritarians everywhere. they persecute everyone not like them.

[Cartoonist]

3. I noticed you didn't weigh in on that thread

Kind of destroys your whole religion is good bs.

[guillaumeb]

4. Rellgion does nothing.

People do things, and they justify what they do using a variety of reasons.

[edhopper]

5. Do people ever do anything good

because of religion or God?

[guillaumeb]

6. People do what they do for a variety of reasons.

Good things, and bad things.

[edhopper]

7. That doesn't answer if you think

people do good things because of religion and God.

You have stated repeatedly that people do not do bad things because of religion. But "it's just the nature of humanity"

So is the opposite true as well, do people do good things because of religion, it is a very straight question.

What are some of the variety of reasons? And are God and religion two of them.

[guillaumeb]

8. What I actually say is that people have a variety of reasons for their behavior.

Some people cite a belief in a deity. Among these theists, some behave badly.

Some people say that they are unsure, or do not believe in a deity. Among these people, some behave badly.

[edhopper]

9. So why do you object when people cite

a religion or belief for a bad behavior?

[guillaumeb]

11. Because "the religion" does not act.

Just as "atheists" do not put Uighurs in concentration camps, but Chines atheists who control their government do.

[edhopper]

15. So why do you post here when someone

does something good that is connected to religion. If religion is not the motivational factor, than religion should have nothing to do with good behavior as well.

[guillaumeb]

25. So why are you ignoring the actual topic?

And that topic is the Chinese persecuting the Uighurs for the crime of being theists.

Is there a reason that you do not wish to discuss this?

[edhopper]

40. is there any reason

you bring that up in threads about other topics?

[guillaumeb]

42. So you refuse to discuss the actual topic.

Understood. It is difficult for some here to admit that everyone can be guilty of intolerance.

[edhopper]

47. Who said they weren't

that is an incredible strawman. But I believe their are reasons for the intolerance, like religion, bigotry or political philosophy. Not just some ambiguous "human nature".

So I have now posted a reply to the topic, will you reply to my question?

[guillaumeb]

48. Point to a human society that is not intolerant to some degree.

China is perhaps among the most flagrant offenders.

[edhopper]

51. So you think intolerance is just human nature

not because of any religious belief. But you refuse to answer if you think good deeds are also due just to human nature, and not because of any religious belief.

[guillaumeb]

53. Intolerance seems to occur in every human society.

So I would suggest that it is part of human nature.

[trotsky]

55. Intolerance does indeed occur in every human society.

Is it OK we therefore look at what seems to promote or reinforce it, to learn more about how to combat/prevent it? Or is that off-limits for discussion in the Religion group? Will you simply continue to "WHATABOUT CHINESE ATHEISTS" every time someone mentions intolerant teachings found in a religion?

[guillaumeb]

56. In my view, tribalism requires, or leads to, intolerance.

How can humans combat their nature?

[trotsky]

58. How can humans combat their nature?

By not venerating teachings and texts that promote and reinforce it, perhaps?

[guillaumeb]

60. By undserstanding that our commonalities

outweigh our differences.

[trotsky]

62. By not venerating teachings and texts that promote and perpetuate our differences, right?

That should be part of the fight against intolerance, should it not?

[Act_of_Reparation]

69. Based on your vast empirical research, I take it.

[guillaumeb]

71. You are always free to suggest your own views.

Based on your experiences, and study.

[Act_of_Reparation]

72. My own view is that my experiences are anecdotal and my "study" lacks rigor.

I defer to experts.

[guillaumeb]

73. And what do these experts say on the subject?

That might be a good topic for a post here.

[Act_of_Reparation]

74. That "human nature" isn't knowable.

That socialization plays an extremely important role in informing human social behavior. But we've gone over this already.

[Major Nikon]

38. Notice how the discussion ends when the hard questions are asked

Religion isn’t responsible for anything, because that’s just “human nature”, except when it isn’t.

If you didn’t know any better, you’d think some people have been indoctrinated into believing all things bad come from the red guy with a bifurcated tail and all good things come from the old white guy with a long beard.

[Cartoonist]

10. So there is no crime for incitement?

People do what they do because that's what they do? No one should ever be charged with incitement?

[guillaumeb]

12. Not at all.

If people break the law, they should accept the consequences.

[Cartoonist]

13. Is incitement a law?

Suppose a holy book says to stone gays?
Suppose a priest says to shoot gays?
Suppose someone does?

See the connection?

[guillaumeb]

14. I am not a lawyer.

But I believe that in the US, certain things are seen as incitement. So I googled the term, and:

18 U.S. Code § 373.Solicitation to commit a crime of violence

Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct, shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half of the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the crime solicited, or both; or if the crime solicited is punishable by life imprisonment or death, shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty years.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373

So there must be an act, not simply words in a book, is how I interpret the above cited reference.

[trotsky]

19. Do you honestly believe Christians view the bible as "simply words in a book"?

Are they just "words in a book" to you?

You're being very disingenuous here.

[guillaumeb]

20. I wrote:

So there must be an act, not simply words in a book, is how I interpret the above cited reference.

Incitement is an action.

And all of this subthread diverts from the topic, which is that the Chinese government is imprisoning a class of people because they are religious. The Chinese government tried to disguise their motivation by making a claim of terrorism, but no one believes their lie. Thye are imprisoning people for the crime of being theists.

So join me in condemning this example of intolerance.

[trotsky]

26. Do you think believers view their sacred texts as simply "words in a book"?

That is the question posed to you.

You're making an argument about what constitutes incitement. This is an analysis of said argument. I can understand why you'd rather not defend your position, though.

[edhopper]

16. Do you agree that only inciting someone to comit a crime

in and of itself should be a crime?

[guillaumeb]

21. Do you feel that the Chinese government is imprisoning people for the crime

of being theists? That is the actual topic here, although all of the diversion has been offered.

So do you agree that the Uighurs are being persecuted by the Chinese government for the crime of being theists?

[trotsky]

27. No. You are 100% wrong on this.

People are not being imprisoned "for the crime of being theists."

They are being imprisoned for being a threat to the state.

The Chinese government also imprisons atheists who are a threat to the state. You know this, because it's been shown to you. But you continue to repeat your false claims, in order to support your agenda.

This is why no one takes you seriously.

[guillaumeb]

33. Read the actual article.

Your argument is with the people whoa re actually being oppressed because they are theists.

I know that this conflicts with your narrative, but perhaps you should consider changing that narrative. Actual scientists know that when evidence contradicts a theory, it is unscientific to reject actual evidence.

[trotsky]

35. I did. A *cursory* reading says what you think it says.

A *thorough* reading does not.

[guillaumeb]

37. Perhaps in your reading, you overlooked this part:

The database emphasizes that the Chinese government focused on religion as a reason for detention — not just political extremism, as authorities claim, but ordinary activities such as praying, attending a mosque, or even growing a long beard. It also shows the role of family: People with detained relatives are far more likely to end up in a camp themselves, uprooting and criminalizing entire families like Emer’s in the process.

And perhaps you also missed this:

“It’s very clear that religious practice is being targeted,” said Darren Byler, a University of Colorado researcher studying the use of surveillance technology in Xinjiang. “They want to fragment society, to pull the families apart and make them much more vulnerable to retraining and reeducation.”

And perhaps you missed this, as well:

China has struggled for decades to control Xinjiang, where the native Uighurs have long resented Beijing’s heavy-handed rule. With the 9/11 attacks in the United States, officials began using the specter of terrorism to justify harsher religious restrictions, saying young Uighurs were susceptible to Islamic extremism.

And, perhaps you missed this, aswell:

Detainees and their families are tracked and classified by rigid, well-defined categories. Households are designated as “trustworthy” or “not trustworthy,” and their attitudes are graded as “ordinary” or “good.” Families have “light” or “heavy” religious atmospheres, and the database keeps count of how many relatives of each detainee are locked in prison or sent to a “training center.”

Possibly, you even missed this:

Reasons listed for internment include “minor religious infection,” “disturbs other persons by visiting them without reasons,” “relatives abroad,” “thinking is hard to grasp” and “untrustworthy person born in a certain decade.” The last seems to refer to younger men; about 31 percent of people considered “untrustworthy” were in the age bracket of 25 to 29 years, according to an analysis of the data by Zenz.

And, perhaps you missed this as well:

That didn’t stop authorities from detaining the imam, who is in his eighties, and sentencing him on various charges for up to 12 years in prison over 2017 and 2018. The database cites four charges in various entries: “stirring up terrorism,” acting as an unauthorized “wild” imam, following the strict Saudi Wahhabi sect and conducting illegal religious teachings.

Perhaps, even this escaped your reasing:

None of Emer’s three sons had been convicted of a crime. But the database shows that over the course of 2017, all were thrown into the detention camps for having too many children, trying to travel abroad, being “untrustworthy” or “infected with religious extremism,”or going on the Hajj, the Muslim pilgrimage to the holy city of Mecca. It also shows that their relation to Emer and their religious background was enough to convince officials they were too dangerous to let out from the detention camps.

I tried to be as thorough as possible, but it is truly difficult to avoid the obvious, that being a theist is sufficient reason to be put in a concentration camp in China.

[trotsky]

39. And YOU missed this part:

It wasn’t just the religious who were detained. The database shows that Karakax officials also explicitly targeted people for activities that included going abroad, getting a passport or installing foreign software.

Of course, that part completely demolishes your point and destroys your agenda, which is why you missed it.

[guillaumeb]

41. OK

But even if this were the only reason, what does it say about the Chinese atheists who control their government?

[trotsky]

43. Ah ah ah, you're forgetting something.

You still haven't proven it's only atheists who control the Chinese government. You assume and assert, but you've never proven.

So go ahead, cement your argument.

[guillaumeb]

44. A weak try at avoidance.

China has adopted a policy of official state atheism.[95][96][33][37] Art. 36 of the Chinese constitution guarantees freedom of religion but limits the right to practice religion to state sanctioned organisations.

The government has promoted atheism throughout the country. In April 2016, the General Secretary, Xi Jinping, stated that members of the Communist Party of China must be "unyielding Marxist atheists" while in the same month, a government-sanctioned demolition work crew drove a bulldozer over two Chinese Christians who protested the demolition of their church by refusing to step aside.[97]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

[trotsky]

45. And how exactly do they enforce that?

How can you be sure? Are you going to take the word of an authoritarian government?

[guillaumeb]

46. If you have been reading the many articles about the Chinese Government surveillance state,

you already know the answer.

if you have not, and have never read how Communist atheists did the same thing in the USSR, then you need to do some reading.

[trotsky]

49. Yes, I do know the answer. The answer is that you cannot know.

Thank you for admitting it.

But hell, for the sake of argument, let's say you're right. Let's assume everyone in the Chinese government is an atheist. Considering that they are arresting and detaining religious people, non-religious people, travelers, computer-savvy people, educators, business people, and just about every other group of people possible... are they doing this because atheism says they should, or are they doing it to protect the power of the Chinese state?

[guillaumeb]

50. Thank you for abandoning a weak line of attack.

So are these Chinese atheists exhibiting intolerance? A similar level of intolerance as we see in, say, Saudi Arabia?

[trotsky]

52. Let's get one thing fucking clear, bub: I didn't abandon it. You failed to make your point.

I then said that for the sake of argument, we would proceed. Don't play these stupid tricks to try and boost your ego. Just drop the shit.

Now, to continue, I have never denied that ANYONE can be intolerant. That is some kind of straw man position that you have repeatedly tried to assign to me, and other people in this forum. I don't hold it. They don't hold it. So stop trying to force it on me, OK? Deal?

The key question to be asked, then, is WHY are the people in the Chinese government intolerant? WHY are the people in the Saudi government intolerant?

Are the people in the Chinese government intolerant because of something they think atheism requires?

Are the people in the Saudi government intolerant because of something they think Islam requires?

[guillaumeb]

54. To the victims of intolerance,

it does not matter what the claimed motivation might be.

Do the Chinese atheists feels that their intolerance is motivated by their atheism? Some might, but I cannot answer for them.

[trotsky]

57. To those of us working to understand intolerance, and confront it, it does matter.

Why won't you allow discussion about that?

As has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions by multiple people on multiple threads, you never hesitate to promote when someone claims their religion motivated them to do good things. Why do you insist religion can never motivate someone to be intolerant?

[guillaumeb]

59. I never deny that people claim to be motivated by many things.

SO to make that argument is false.

[trotsky]

61. No, here's the distinction you're missing.

You always say people "claim" to be motivated, not that they ARE motivated by religion to do bad things.

But there are verses in the bible and koran that specifically promote intolerance. You are begging the question by wanting everyone to think they're just reading those things incorrectly. As if you are the holder of all the TRUE religious teachings of the world, and anyone who comes to a different conclusion than you is just "claiming" to understand it differently so they can justify the (in your opinion) bad behavior.

Get it yet?

[guillaumeb]

63. And does every theist interpret these verses identically?

No.

[trotsky]

64. No of course not, no one ever said they did.

But who are you to say your interpretation is valid, and theirs isn't?

[guillaumeb]

65. So if every theist does not see these few verses as requiring, or promoting, intolerance,

perhaps the person who claims to see these verses as promoting intolerance is looking for justification.

Just as citizens who claim to find justification for intolerance in the histories of their own countries.

[trotsky]

66. But not every theist sees other verses as promoting tolerance, either.

Are you the decider of what the bible says?

[guillaumeb]

67. So people can find reasons to justify their intolerance.

History does suggest that.

[trotsky]

68. But you don't get to decide that some people are doing their religion wrong.

You don't know if you've interpreted your holy book correctly. You can never know.

People can truly be motivated by their religion to be intolerant. It can and does happen. Do you admit this, at long last?

[guillaumeb]

70. Again, you mischaracterize, or misunderstand, my actual position.

I do not define for others the correct interpretation of the Bible.

[trotsky]

75. That's exactly what you are doing.

You are saying that those who are inspired to intolerance by their religion are wrong, that there is no intolerance in any religious teaching (thus saying they are wrong) and further, you are promoting prejudice against non-believers by saying that no one can truly follow religious teachings and be intolerant.

People can truly be motivated by their religion to be intolerant. It can and does happen. Do you admit this, or not?

[guillaumeb]

81. Your response misframes what I have said here.

Luckily for you, straw is in abundant supply.

[trotsky]

82. How?

Explain how I "misframed." I dare you. This is your go-to escape hatch - you get argued into a corner with your own position, and then say you were "misframed" and run away.

Or even easier, just answer this question:

Do you think religious teachings can ever promote or encourage intolerance? Yes or no.

[trotsky]

83. People can truly be motivated by their religion to be intolerant.

Do you admit this or not?

If I have misframed what you've said, then please explain how instead of just dismissively throwing out a knee-jerk response.

[trotsky]

80. People can truly be motivated by their religion to be intolerant.

It can and does happen. Do you admit this, or not?

[trotsky]

36. More from the actual article:

It wasn’t just the religious who were detained. The database shows that Karakax officials also explicitly targeted people for activities that included going abroad, getting a passport or installing foreign software.

You don't care about these victims, you only want to promote the idea that the Chinese government only targets theists for the "crime" of being theists.

You are being dishonest, deceitful, and disgusting.

[trotsky]

18. "Some people cite a belief in a deity."

This is not exactly true, but it's what you say in order to obfuscate the issue and support your agenda.

People cite specific religious teachings to support their position. You know, like the parts of the bible that say you should kill witches. Those horrible teachings exist, no matter how much people like you want to shut your eyes and pretend they don't. Because just as you pick and choose what parts of the bible you want to accept, so too do the horrible people like murderers and terrorists. They have just as many verses in the bible or koran to point to as you do.

But you can't stand this reality, so you keep trying to say it's just people being bad and making up the claim that it's supported by their religion.

Until and unless people like you accept there really are bad things taught in religions, those bad people will still have the power.

[guillaumeb]

22. Speak to the topic of this thread.

Or, continue diverting because the Chinese government is run by atheists.

[trotsky]

28. When you stop diverting on other threats by "whatabouting" China,

then you will have the moral standing to dictate what people talk about on your threats.

Til then, tough shit.

[guillaumeb]

32. Be the change you wish to see. eom

[trotsky]

34. Why won't you, then?

What kind of Christian attitude is that, g? Did Jesus tell you to turn the other cheek, or did he tell you to take an eye for an eye?

[trotsky]

17. Despite your endless attempts to link the actions of the Chinese government to atheism...

it doesn't work. Mainly because it's not the reason why.

But you've got your agenda of hate, and that's that.

[guillaumeb]

23. If you had read the article,

you would have seen that your claim here is easily refuted by the facts of the situation.

But you do have your agenda.

[trotsky]

29. I read the article. And the facts support me.

Not your agenda. I understand your frustration with this, and your need to hate and attack because of it.

[trotsky]

30. From the article:

“It underscores the witch-hunt mindset of the government, and how the government criminalizes everything,” said Adrian Zenz, an expert on the detention centers and senior fellow at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in Washington, D.C.

Reasons listed for internment include “minor religious infection,” “disturbs other persons by visiting them without reasons,” “relatives abroad,” “thinking is hard to grasp” and “untrustworthy person born in a certain decade.” The last seems to refer to younger men; about 31 percent of people considered “untrustworthy” were in the age bracket of 25 to 29 years, according to an analysis of the data by Zenz.

The Chinese government goes after anyone it deems a threat. Some of those people are theists. Some are not. Some of them are young, some of them are old. Some are educated, some are not.

But your agenda requires you to pretend that it's only about religion. You aren't telling the full story because of this.

No wonder you struggle so mightily to be taken seriously, yet fail.

[guillaumeb]

24. Whataboutism 101.

Noted, and understood. The Chinese atheists who control the government are extremely intolerant.

[trotsky]

31. You are certainly an expert on whataboutism, I'll give you that.

Tons of experience using it.

BTW, can you provide your evidence that the people who control the Chinese government are ALL atheists? You've been asked to support this claim many times, but you never have. I wonder why that is?

[guillaumeb]

76. Of the 3 who responded here, 100% of them engaged in whataboutism.

A perfect score.

[trotsky]

77. Ah, I see you're including yourself.

Got a response for #75 yet? You've been avoiding this thread for a few days, figured you couldn't come up with a good response. Looks like I was right, since you're kicking this irrelevant part of the thread.

BTW - you don't get to complain about whataboutism until you stop doing it. I challenge you to refrain from "WHATABOUT CHINA" posting on other threads. Will you accept the challenge? Or will you still mete out "eye for an eye" justice on those you think deserve it, just like Jesus ordered you to?

[guillaumeb]

78. I started the thread.

And 3 responders immediately engaged in diversion, and whataboutism.

[trotsky]

79. That's your claim.

But you've also demonstrated a really poor grasp of what "whataboutism" really is.

Anyway, still awaiting your response to demonstrate that you're not defining what religion is for others.

Carry on.