As far as I know, no one was forced to change their religion (Uyghurs aren’t even the biggest Muslim group in China, that’s the Hui) and there was no mass murder. I believe some innocent people who were wrongly suspected of being terrorists were strip-searched, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.
Yogthos, Cowbee etc. have given very detailed answers below. From what I know, the things they said are mostly correct. However, one point to note is that a very small minority of Uyghur people, who were influenced by fundamentalist Wahhabi teachings, carried out terrorist attacks against non-Uyghur people in the 2010s. So there was an atmosphere of fear and suspicion against all the Uyghurs, and many innocent people were subjected to searches, arrests, and so on. This has been documented by the UN. Of course, this is not dissimilar to the way Muslims were treated in France or the US after terrorist attacks. In fact, representatives from Muslim countries who visited Xinjiang praised the government’s response, as it included a lot of job creation and infrastructure projects to turn people away from extremism.
Every country is ‘authoritarian’. That’s pretty much the practical definition of a country - that they, and they alone, can use force within their borders.
If you travel to another country, you should of course consider your own safety, as well as whether that country crosses something you see as a red line. To give an example, I oppose state restrictions on religion (unless they are dangerous to the public), am a republican, and support Palestinian independence. But I would visit France, the UAE or Germany if I got the chance, and I would try to understand why they have those policies (restrictions on Muslims’ clothes, monarchy, and ban on criticising Israel). But I would not go to the US, since getting shot by a random madman is not good for health.
He first graphic here proves you wrong
Look at the six categories in the graph. Only the dark red represents processed petroleum.
Why would anyone sell cheap crude then buy back expensive gas??
Right, why would any country export cheap raw materials and buy back expensive finished products? That could never happen, right? Surely the majority of the world’s countries aren’t doing it?
Why have refiners if youre exportibg crude?
Bunch of reasons: (1) for domestic use, (2) they can sell it for more, and (3) Russia had a great industrial sector back when it was part of the USSR, and some of that still survives.
But you are right that attacks on Russian refineries will reduce the processing that is happening within Russia. They will have to buy more products from China, etc. Hopefully this convinces their government to invest in industry, but based on what I’ve seen so far I’m not holding my breath on this.
Big if true. Good on the UAE for finally standing up for the Palestinians.
No, the distinction is important. Russia mostly extracts petroleum and gas, and exports them. The processing happens in China or India. Then, the processed components, including petrol (gasoline), are resold by China and India.
Now I’m sure Russia would rather their refineries not be attacked, and these disruptions could very well cause local shortages or price fluctuations. But for the wider economy or overall supply chains, this won’t matter much.
The Washington Post article is definitely propaganda. The others I feel are just unclear wording.
This is simplistic. If reform works, do it. If it cannot, use force. Even Marx, if I remember correctly, supported the reformist Chartists in relatively democratic countries like England (while supporting revolutionary methods in feudal Germany).
‘Gasoline’ means petrol, not gas.
Euro won’t work. For other countries to use the Euro, they need to have Euro stocks. For this, the EU needs to (1) run a deficit, and (2) manufacture something of value to the rest of the world. But the EU won’t run a deficit, and its manufacturing sector is collapsing.
You must also remember that they’re running out of ice. The new shipments from Thailand are being delayed by jaguar attacks.
There’s no way you can move a surface ship with enough food for a significant number of people to Gaza without every government in the area knowing. They are announcing their location so Israel can’t shoot at them and later say they thought they were pirates.
Of course, Israel doesn’t exactly have a good record in following rules.
In India, the ‘castle’ is a chariot - it can go fast, but only along straight lines since it’s a pain to turn. And the ‘bishop’ is an elephant - they can move diagonally since elephants are surprisingly manoeuvrable.
The Radxa Rock 5 series use RK3588s and have USB, ethernet and 4-32 GB RAM.
‘Trade with us or we’ll make it harder to trade with us’? That makes perfect sense!
Materialism is the ultimate means of oppression.
Materialism was historically just one way of understanding the world. Over time, it got accepted more and more because it could make testable (and useful) predictions, and they turned out to be right.
And it’s something you’ve been conditioned to believe in since birth.
Because it works.
Socialists, communists etc. still rely on materialism to drive their ideology
Because it works.
To make clear the point Cowbee made, consider these three scenarios:-
The different parts of the country have different levels of natural resources / infrastructure / educational facilities. Co-ops i the wealthier areas are doing well, and all their employees are prospering. But those in the poorer areas are struggling, and all their employees are struggling.
There are five co-ops making the same type of product (say, radios). They each have their own design office, factory, sales networks and marketing. Would it not be more efficient to consolidate them?
There is a co-op that works in digging coal and running a thermal power plant. The society as a whole would benefit from switching to solar panels, but this co-op keeps blocking all such efforts since it would hurt them.
Good. Wtf do they mean, sanctioning medical work!
As far as we know we have not found the colonialism gene, and there is no evidence that Europeans are somehow genetically different at this locus. So we can, at least for now, ignore the possibility that Europeans are inherently evil, or predisposed towards colonialism. Rather, the actions of any people must be understood as a consequence of their circumstances and culture.
White people are not only the beneficiaries of the colonialism that has already happened, they are often also the beneficiaries of colonialism that is currently happening. The CIA didn’t coup random Central American countries because they were bored. The IMF and World Bank don’t give loans to African countries for humanitarian reasons.
I feel that the same principles that govern other animals should apply, more or less, to humans too. Although it might be more appropriate to compare human societies to populations of social animals (such as ant colonies or beehives) than to different species.
I think the difference is that historically China had excellent agricultural land, a relatively modern and stable economy, and was surrounded by poorer and less advanced countries. So people had all the resources they wanted, and had little incentive to go far away. In contrast, Europe was fragmented, with Scotland, the Netherlands and Portugal actually having poor / too little land, and so there was a push for both raw materials and markets.