Seriously though, the USA is virtually always bad.

      • DiscoPosting [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
        8·
        1 year ago

        de-encyclopedia — The Council for Foreign Relations rose to prominence in the 1930’s, after receiving millions of dollars in donations from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. A subset within the Council known as the “security and armaments group” was lead by Allen Dulles, who would later go on to become the director of the CIA. 57% of United States government officials were members of the Council during Lyndon B. Johnson’s presidency, leading many of the Councils “non-partisan” beliefs to almost-exclusively reflect those of the sitting government. In 1979, David Rockefeller — then-chairman of the Council — used his position to pressure Jimmy Carter to admit the Shah of Iran into an American hospital to be treated for lymphoma, enraging Iranians who believed this was a sign of a coming US-backed coup; the Iran Hostage Crisis began just thirteen days later.

          • DiscoPosting [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
            9·
            1 year ago

            de-rhetoric — You’re citing atrocity propaganda about the current largest enemy of the United States as written by a group directly funded by United States military intelligence and posing it as a legitimate source. The Council for Foreign Relations have been documented to have directly incited multiple international diplomatic incidents and have solved none. Other sources you’ve linked elsewhere in the thread have suffered similar problems; the CFR has direct funding from the CIA, the Jamestown Foundation has direct funding from the Department of Defense, the ASPI has direct funding from Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin. All of these groups that you cite demonstrate clear conflicts of interest when they publish articles that are frothingly anti-China while filling their pockets with money from those who want nothing more than a casus belli to try dismantling China.

      • robinn2 [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        A response to my multitude of points that I collected for a week in this source is… an article from a single Washington think tank with deep ties to the U.S. state department (almost all members have held positions in the U.S. government).

        The article repeatedly incorrectly refers to the Communist Party of China (CPC) as the “Chinese Communist Party (CCP).” Whatever, what sources are used? U.S. government officials and the line of the U.S. government; “satellite images” which tell you absolutely nothing about what is going on inside these buildings, and certainly don’t prove the claim of genocide; a report by ASPI, a propaganda arm of the western military industrial complex, which has already been disproven; the OHCHR report, which has been critiqued on several grounds [1] [2]; a Washington Post article which cites Radio Free Asia, a CIA propaganda arm funded by U.S. Congress; a BBC report relying on unsworn testimony (which contradicts earlier testimony by the same person) and verification by Adrian Zenz (discussed in the carrd I made and linked); a New York Times report (using fraudulent documents) that purposely misrepresented a speech by Xi Jinping is cited for a continuation of this misrepresentation; the ASPI “Uyghurs for Sale” report, which has already been refuted; another ASPI report which uses satellite imagery to prove the demolition of mosques, you can understand by skepticism with ASPI and this method; Adrian Zenz’s report on “forced sterilization” which misrepresents the issue [1] [2]; the bs Xinjiang Police Files.

        There is no mention of U.S. support for terrorism in Xinjiang (see the carrd) when terrorism is discussed (and evidence for the ETIM not being active for a decade is the U.S. government saying it’s not active for a decade, because these sycophantic parrots think this is all that is necessary). Honestly fair try attempting to skip the reading, but unfortunately it didn’t work.