• bishbosh@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Is your point here that China’s actions against Uyghurs is more recent and extensive than the US’s part in Gaza?

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Recent, extensive, and active. The US doesn’t have a direct part in Gaza, China has a direct part in the issues w/ the Uyghurs.

      I’m not saying the US is innocent here, just that they’re very different situations.

      • bishbosh@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        20 hours ago

        The US doesn’t have a direct part in Gaza

        This argument is incredibly hallow to me.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          20 hours ago

          hallow

          Odd, because I didn’t get it blessed by a priest. :)

          Seriously though, there’s a pretty big difference between doing the genocide yourself and supplying weapons to an ally, who uses those weapons for genocide.

          • bishbosh@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            18 hours ago

            I think this is a very convenient position for the US. It fails to take into account the depth of connections between Israel and the US, and how much of the situation in Gaza can only happen because of the US.

            Even if I grant that there is some genocide scaling factor because it’s done by a vassal state, I still would argue the devastation of Gaza is certainly more far extensive.