Saltar para: Post [1], Pesquisa e Arquivos [2]

nomadic thoughts

ความคิดพเนจร - Кочевые Мысли - Pensées Nomades - الأفكار البدوية - Pensamentos Nómadas - 游牧理念

nomadic thoughts

ความคิดพเนจร - Кочевые Мысли - Pensées Nomades - الأفكار البدوية - Pensamentos Nómadas - 游牧理念

Debunking Western propaganda against China - Concentration camps for Uighurs [VIDEO 2 - 1st part]

VIDEO 2 - China's hidden camps | BBC UK

 

Because Western Propaganda Machine can't convince us to hate China with logical reasoning and intellectual honesty, BBC and many other Western media offer us emotional manipulation, with carefully selected words meant to transmit negative ideas about China.

Here's an example: "In Xinjiang, displays of police might are everywhere". 

BBC employees surely heard about Goebbels, thus we can assume they know what they are doing:

There was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyway always yield to the stronger, and this will always be 'the man in the street.' Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology."

Joseph Goebbels

 

screenshot 1

00:00-00:10 BBC starts by insinuating 4 sensationalist Chinese sins: large-scaled oppression; police forces don't allow enlightened Western journalists to film evidence of Chinese sins; China omnipresent and repressive regime doesn't allow Uighurs to express themselves; wise and superior Westerners know much better, only from browsing GoogleMaps!

And of course, dramatic music suggesting we are about to witness some gruesome evidence proving once and for all that China, the Chinese government, the CCP, and the Chinese Han are bad, really bad

 

Screenshot 2

00:11-00:14 "The search for China's hidden camps."

Firstly no, BBC doesn't need to search for well-known facilities already visited by BBC employees. The so-called "camps" are objectively visible and not "hidden" at all. Chinese media and other Western media already visited some so-called "camps", collecting footage inside those facilities and thus proving they are not hidden from public knowledge.

As for the many other "camps" BBC believes to exist thanks to GoogleMaps footage, well, if BBC journalists and experts managed to find those "camps", then they are also not  "hidden".  Conclusion: the use of the word "hidden" makes no sense at all. 

Secondly, these are not camps. Until proven the contrary, Vocational Centers (Vocational Education and Training Centers, 职业技能教育培训中心), are what their creators call them: "Vocational Centers". To call it a camp, BBC might be dishonestly insinuating the idea of "concentration camps". If it is not the case, BBC should clarify what definition of "camps" shall the viewers use when watching BBC.

definition of "camp"

What's a "Chinese camp" for Uighurs? A group of Uighur people living together in a camp? Temporary lodgings in the country for Uighur travelers? Temporary living quarters specially built by the army for Uighur soldiers? A recreation area in the country, equipped with extensive facilities for sports where Uighurs can enjoy life?

Sure BBC was not referring to any of these. BBC wants us to think about "concentration camps" without pronouncing "concentration camps". Fair enough. Well done. BBC masters some propaganda tricks.

But how do concentration camps actually look like? To read A Brief History of US Concentration Camps (by Brett Wilkins) would be a good starting point for these apparently oblivious BBC journalists. 

Concentration camps for migrants in El Paso, USA, 2019:

U.S. Border Patrol agents register migrants at a processing center in El Paso, Texas. (Photo: Mani Albrecht/U.S. Customs and Border Protection, via Getty Images)

Concentration camps for German prisoners in France during WWII:

Original Caption: German prisoners in a French prison camp. French Pictorial Service., 1917 - 1919  U.S. National Archives’ Local Identifier:165-WW-461D(3)

America's Japanese Concentration Camps during WWII (an obvious example of a minority oppressed by its mother state):

 

Screenshot 3

00:15-00:20 "What has happened to the vanished Uighurs of Xinjiang?"

Firstly, which "Uighurs" is BBC talking about? Can BBC provide a list of the Uighurs in question, including full name and location where they were last seen? Extraordinary statements require equally extraordinary evidence. BBC has no evidence at all about who is the BBC talking about. 

Secondly, from an intellectually honest and sane perspective, it is unacceptable to talk about "vanished" persons when we don't even know who we are talking about! That's simply absurd. One can't even deny what BBC insinuates, for a matter of basic logical reasoning known to humankind at the least since the time of the great Greek philosophers: first, tell me who you believe to be missing, then I might be able to prove you right or wrong.

Third, if BBC is talking about unknown and unspecified persons that hypothetically vanished (or not), asking what "happened" to those hypothetical persons hypnotically vanished brings the nonsense to an even higher level of absurdity. 

 

Although the BBC didn't bother to explain it, one can easily understand that by "vanished Uighurs" BBC means the decrease in population of certain locations in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region due to the relocation of locals to other areas where they get housing and new jobs to take them out of poverty. This has been happening inside Xinjiang Region, hence discrediting, even more, the insinuation of "vanished Uighurs of Xinjiang". The fact that these projects are not exclusive of Xinjiang and the Uighurs, further discredit the incomprehensible alleged "persecution of Uighurs". 

To state that Uighurs "vanished" implies that they can no longer be found on Earth's surface. That's simply not true and, if the BBC insists on sticking to this bold accusation, BBC has to provide hard evidence on how the Chinese manage to make them vanish. Anything else is, at best, is fake news!

The real news is that these people did not vanish, they can easily be found (if at the least BBC wished to find them) and the Chinese initiative is taking hundreds of thousands of Uighurs out of poverty at a very fast pace:

Northwest China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region lifted 537,000 people out of poverty last year."

"A total of 513 villages and three counties in Xinjiang shook off poverty last year, and the region's poverty headcount ratio dropped from 11.57 percent in 2017 to 6.51 percent."

"The region invested over 33.4 billion yuan (4.9 billion U.S. dollars) in poverty relief last year, 92.3 percent of which went to the four prefectures, which sit on the edge of the Taklimakan Desert."

"The region also built new houses for 68,900 households in 22 impoverished counties in southern Xinjiang last year."

"In a bid to eliminate absolute poverty by 2020, Xinjiang will continue to use relocation as a means of poverty reduction and speed up infrastructure construction in poverty-stricken villages."

 

Given the fact that the BBC and other Western media argue the Chinese authorities do not let them film the [concentration] "camps", why don't they film the houses, factories, and farmland where the alleged "vanished" Uighurs live and work? Nobody will prevent them from going there, the locations are well known and there are also GoogleMaps footage of those places to be analyzed by experts. Come on, analyze GoogleMaps footage and you will surely find mesmerizing fast-pace construction of infrastructure: we usually call it progress!

Uygur women working at a clothing factory in a village of Aksu prefecture, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. The average monthly income of the workers at the factory is over 2,000 yuan

 

Screenshot 4

00:21-00:28 More emotional manipulation with carefully selected words in a deceptive attempt to transmit negative impressions: "In Xinjiang, displays of police might are everywhere?".

I wonder what does "police might" mean in BBCish newspeak?

Really, what does "display of might" mean?

To be dressed as policemen? To carry the same tools and light weapons every police force on Earth carries? To drive police cars as every police force does? No BBC,  that's police forces doing their job!

This is an (unnecessary) display of police might is Boston, USA:

POLICE-STATE

This is an (unnecessary) display of police might is the US:

pictures of police might in the US

 

Let's forget the use of the word "might", which was intentionally misplaced in this sentence, and focus on "police everywhere". Again "everywhere" where?

  • Option 1: Only in Xinjiang?
  • Option 2: Especially in Xinjiang?
  • Option 3: Everywhere in China? 

Option 1 is a silly lie. Let's move on.

Option 2? Why not, but please do not forget to provide data showing that, on average, there's more policemen or police cars in the streets of Xinjiang than in the rest of China  (which would be perfectly normal given the number of terrorist attacks perpetrated in that region and/or perpetrated by individuals born in that region).

Still, after having watched these 5 seconds numerous times, I chose option 3. I have been in several Chinese cities, I lived in China and, from my own experience, this "display of police mightiness" is quite common in China, especially in bus stations, train stations, and city-centers.

 

What about the unusual and illegal display of military might by UK/US forces in Afghanistan (country A) in the aftermath of a terrorist attack committed in country B (USA) by nationals of its close ally country C (Saudi Arabia)?

What about the display of police and military might everywhere in the Thai provinces of Pattani and Narathiwat? I personally experienced to be stopped every 2 or 3 km for dozens of kilometers in these provinces. Officially, this immense display of police and military might is there to prevent the occurrence of more terrorist attacks as the ones allegedly committed by the local Muslim minority in the region. Facing the same official reason, BBC sees a dubious display of police might in Xinjiang, but fails to see the enormous display of police and military might in Pattani/Narathiwat. That says a lot about BBC's credibility.

 

Back to "vanished" people, what happened to people in Detroit? Why are locals "vanishing" there? Following BBC's reasoning, Chinese CGTN could visit that half-ghost US city and equally conclude that "up to 1 million" US citizens vanished at the hands of the US Repressive Regime, and are now confined in some hidden concentration camps against their will. False allegations, right? Right, and that's exactly the problem with BBC's report on Uighurs!

 

In truth, there are many modern slaves there in the US, arrested by the millions in private jails (what a nonsensical and inhuman concept) that look more like concentration camps and where a US minority of Black Americans are clearly the predominant target of persecution. Watch Tortured & Enslaved: Enter the World's Biggest Prison, by Abby Martin. 

 

Screenshot 5

00:28-00:31 "There's something here they don't want you to see."

"You" who? BBC can't be talking about BBC journalists and other Western journalists because several of them have entered vocational centers and were allowed to film inside. 

BBC can't be talking about Western audiences because Western audiences have access to footage like the videos we are debunking here,  plus access to Chinese news channels in English language like CGTN.

And no, dear not dear BBC, don't say "ah, but Chinese media only show you what they want you to see", implying this sick and old dichotomic Western fallacy: we are the good guys, therefore, by definition, we are telling the truth about devil inferior races/regimes; we don't have to prove it with hard evidence; on the other hand, if those devil races/regimes do not show evidence of the alleged horrific crimes we believe they are committing, we can conclude they are hiding the truth; the actual non-existence of what we want to believe in without evidence... is an irrelevant detail. 


Really, a Westerner convinced that Chinese are lying or hidden something just because Chinese are Chinese and not Westerners, proves nothing about those unknown unproven assumptions and further exposes Western complexes of superiority and supremacist ideals, as well as the Western tendency for intellectual arrogance, colonial paternalism and exceptionalist perspective of reality.  

 

Back to British propaganda, BBC can't be talking about Chinese audiences because they too have access to the mentioned Western media and Chinese media in English plus to the Chinese media offering the same kind of reports in Chinese Mandarin. 

BBC can't be talking about Chinese people passing by, as it is obvious they can see the outside. And the BBC can't be talking about the inside either,  because few seconds after this absurd claim, the BBC showed civilians entering the vocational center to visit relatives

 

Screenshot 6

00:32-00:46 "Huge fences all around. Look. Behind this blue steal walls, in a former school, it is what China calls a vocational center. But it looks more like a prison."

It makes perfect sense to install a vocational center in a former school, no? Did this BBC journalist spend at least a minute to think about the concept or is he just too full of Western supremacism to concede the Chinese people the possibility of being reasonable persons?

In his personal view, it looks like a prison. Ok, why not. In my opinion, Westminster Palace looks like a gruesome symbol of imperial plunder and the enslaving of human beings. So what? Please, BBC, let's leave biased opinions aside and stick to hard facts, ok?

Huge fences and steel walls? Yes, because now it is no longer a school. Now it is a vocational center, part of the Chinese government policy to irradicate religious extremism that led to several terrorist attacks and many injured/dead victims.

When extremist Islamists (a UK/US creation, not to be confounded with peaceful Islam) explode a bomb in Paris, Western MSM goes mad; people all over the planet, over-exposed to Western media, mourns the French victims; the French government keeps letting Saudi and Qatari extremists spread more Islamist extremism inside French mosques; French Terror Army continues to occupy and bomb Muslim/Arab nations. And the West is absolutely fine with all that.

When Uighur extremist Islamists (supported by the US and with political representation in Washington) continuously commit terrorist attacks in China, Western media ignores it; indoctrinated Western audiences and many others living in Western vassal states never get to know about the terrorist attacks, let alone the number of Chinese people injured or killed.

Instead of disrespecting International Law, like France, the UK and the US do, China does not invade nor bomb countries. China opts to re-brainwash Chinese Uighur citizens victims of extremist/terrorist brainwashing (so far a very effective measure, as the wave of terrorist attacks stopped).  

Furthermore, in a very Chinese way of dealing with reality, China strongly bets on prevention. China offers Uighur people in danger of being radicalized (and everybody else) the chance to acquire professional skills and learn languages, promoting better chances of a prosperous future that will take Uighurs away from US-backed terrorist indoctrination.

 

Screenshot 7

00:51-01:07 "From above, the grim details can be picked out. Last year the school had a football pitch. Today it's covered with what looks like accommodation blocks. Watchtowers are visible."

But it is perfectly reasonable that a former school transformed into a vocational center has a hybrid look. It looks like the school it once was but with jail-like characteristics appropriated to its new purpose.

As Gerry Brown explains:

Many watchtowers, barbed wires for the vocational training centers? Why such tight security if they are vocational training centers?
Most of the newly-built vocational training centers are located in South Xinjiang where Uighurs predominate, and where many have been brainwashed with religious extremism especially Wahhabism. To detoxify their religious extremism, they are told to enroll in vocational centers with free lodging, food and skills training. There's a need to have tight security around the training centers to prevent attacks by East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) terrorists. In the past, ETIM terrorists attacked fellow Uighurs when they refused to participate in terrorism.
As noted by others, how can it be detention camp when the trainees are free to go home for the weekends, and visits by relatives are allowed.
After a few years of cracking down on terrorism, the authority in Xinjiang turns its attention to the root cause of terrorism: poverty and ignorance. Empowering them with employable skills and detoxifying them are effective in cutting off new recruits by ETIM. So much so that there hasn't been a single act of terrorism since 2016!"

 

Dormitories for people to stay overnight makes perfect sense in a vocational center (even in a school)! A "grim detail" would be to keep the football pitch and force trainees to sleep outdoor.

Watchtowers in a school would look odd, but not in a vocational center. Fences and watchtowers are there to protect facilities, employees, and trainees for the reasons already exposed. So what? Is BBC against the rule of law and against Chinese authorities' right to enforce the law,  a very soft law?

A very soft policy in reaction to many terrorists attack in China when compared to the US's reaction to a single 911 terrorist attack: invasion and destruction of several Muslim and/or Arab countries, with millions of innocent people displaced, injured, tortured, kidnapped, killed or starved to death. 

Is this BBC journalist, shocked by the soft measures China takes to fight terrorism - that would be seen as a progressive joke in the US, land of the Patriot Act -, implying that he actually supports TERROR and EXTREMISM in China? I really hope he doesn't!

 

Anyway, if the Chinese policy of re-educating people brainwashed with extremism to give them tools to start a new life is just too much for BBC, what about the British government, the British Army, the British Secret Services, British media and British NGO's actively training, helping, financing, transporting, arming and/or campaigning for international terrorist organizations in Syria (including Uighur's Turkestan Islamic Party, present in Idlib)? That's fine, just fine, right BBC?

And what about the jails for underaged citizens in the US sometimes indefinitely arrested because of insignificant transgressions like verbally offending a teacher? Aren't they also oppressed by fences and watchtowers? But that's fine for BBC, right? Fine, just fine, because it means profit for the owners of those private jails in US soil, right?

In a grim reality of US concentration camps live thousands of child migrants, with "reports by children of rapes, sexual abuse and assaults" according to WSWS.

In a grim reality of US concentration camps live southern migrants, victims of scandalous inhuman conditions:

Compare it with life inside a Chinese vocational center:

 

See, which one has grim details, the US case or the Chinese. I don't want to sound arrogant, but only a very high level of cognitive dissonance, as a result of long exposure to toxic sinophobic Western propaganda, can prevent a BBC journalist from acknowledging the obvious. 

Otherwise, BBC journalists should be capable of seeing "grim details" in the US imperialistic need to kill 1,147 innocent people abroad in order to execute 41 suspected foreign terrorists without trial. Suspects are innocent until proven guilty, right?

In a world of such US candid methods to allegedly "fight terrorism" by the means of state terrorism, what's wrong about China providing rehabilitation and education to citizens previously affected by terrorist ideology?

Just imagine the Chinese Army killing 1,147 civilians abroad in their attempt to kill 41 Uighur men suspected of being terrorists. Imagine the Chinese Army slaughtering this amount of innocent people. How would the West react? 

 

Screenshot 8

01:07-01:34 BBC journalist claimed "officials" prevented him from interviewing relatives of people staying at the vocational center nearby.

Yet, the journalism failed to identify the person in question and prove his "official" status.  

Yet, he was able to talk to that family, thanks to another alleged and unidentified "official".

Then, the footage was edited; the video was trimmed on minute 1.22, so we can't possibly know for how long did he manage to talk to the family. 10 seconds? 10 minutes? One hour? We don't know the answer for that but, given the noticeable differences in light and camera position before and after minute 1.22, it is clear that the conversation lasted more than mere seconds (as BBC tries to insinuate), eventually stopped by that unidentified man BBC calls an "official" (but who knows if he was not a relative upset with BBC's harassment?).

In resume: I can't prove the conversation lasted long; BBC can't prove the conversation did NOT last long; BBC whished to insinuate (systematic) censorship on this issue but failed to provide hard evidence of a single case of censorship;  BBC wasted 27 seconds on thin air.

 

Screenshot 8

01:34-01:43 "Xinjiang's main Muslim minority are known as the Uighurs." Correct, BBC finally got something right.

"We find many of their homes locked and deserted." 

This insinuation is very serious and relates directly to the previous insinuations of "vanished Uighurs in Xinjiang". BBC should have hard evidence to back such bold claims. Yet, BBC does not have a single piece of evidence.

In truth, as previously said here, many Uighurs have been relocated within the Xinjiang region and into other regions of China for rather positive reasons: get better jobs to earn more money and improve their standards of living:

The video suggests that they all have been sent to detention camps. My article in Counterpunch quoted an official figure of 400,000 Uighurs having been relocated from remote villages to nearby towns and cities where they can be gainfully employed. As a result, 600,000 Uighurs have been lifted from poverty in 2 years to 2017. Such relocation is not confined to Uighurs in Xinjiang. It has been done for Han Chinese in other provinces as well, millions of them.
Another few thousand Uighurs have gone to Turkey through issues of Turkish passports by Turkey embassy and most ended up in Idlib fighting along with ISIL. In Northern Syria, the Uighur terrorists occupied the houses of Syrian Muslims, who were forced to leave their homes and land. And the West portrays these Uighur terrorists as the victims!

(Gerry Brown)

 

If there are Xinjiang deserted areas previously inhabited by Uighurs and large numbers of Uighurs vanishing ("up to 1 million" is said after), why every single document on the demographics of Xinjiang suggests the very opposite? As Dennis Etler argues:

After the beginning of the economic reforms in the 1980s Xinjing had a population of 13.08 million of which 46% were Uighur and 40% were Han. The 2000 census recorded 18.46 million of which 45.21% were Uighur and 40.57 were Han. The 2010 census recorded a population of 21,813,334 with 43.3% Uighur and 41.0% Han. The demographics of Xinjiang have hardly changed over the last 35 years of economic reform and growth! So where is the vast demographic shift, the government sponsored premeditated flooding of Xinjiang with Han to dispossess the Uighurs that the Western media constantly harps about? IT'S SIMPLY NON-EXISTANT! Lies, lies and more lies."

 

With a quick look at Xinjiang's demographics on Wikipedia, one learns that between 2000 and 2015 the total amount and the percentage of Uighurs in Xinjiang actually increased, from 43,6% to 46,42%. During the same period, the percentage of Han Chinese decreased, from 40,6% to 38,99%. And we shall not forget that there are more Uighurs living in other regions of China. The math is easy and the conclusion is very simple: the absolute number of Uighurs living inside Chinese borders keeps growing year after year,  proving that Uighurs are NOT vanishing

 

Knowing all this, what can be said about: "we find many of their homes locked and deserted"?

Well, firstly, the BBC, in a flagrant example of anti-journalism, insinuates a correlation between a locked house of a single person currently staying in a vocational center to the alleged desertification of some unmentioned parts of the Xinjiang province.

Secondly, the BBC does not inform us about the location of the filmed door, thus nullifying its own evidence, as we can't possibly fact-check if the footage was collected in China. 

Thirdly, if there are indeed many "deserted homes" god knows where (BBC doesn't know), such alleged phenomenon might be related to the mentioned relocation of Uighurs (in English, "relocated" is not a synonym of "vanished").

Fourthly, what is BBC's definition of "many"? 10? 1,000? 1,000.000? 

In conclusion: the BBC is once again caught announcing to have found thin air somewhere on planet Earth, while trying to convince us about a gruesome made-up Chinese reality. Goebbels would be very proud of BBC! 

 

Screenshot 9

01:43-01:49 "Sinister official notices on the doors saying the missing are being looked after." 

Here we go again with BBC's Machiavellian insinuations meant to disinform as much as possible.

Sinister is to resume 1 title and 6 topics into a single word: "sinister".

Sinister is to have an international corporation with an annual budget of  £4.722 billion (2013/14 figures) conveniently unable to provide a full translation of a tiny document. If the BBC were to produce serious professional journalism, we should have got the entire document translated, so the audience would be able to judge by themselves. 

As for the "official notice", no, it is not at all "sinister":

In Chinese Mandarin:

"六个讲清楚"

1. 讲清楚其家人被关爱的原因

2. 讲清楚当前的严打政策

3. 讲清楚宗教极端思想的现实危害

4. 讲清楚被关爱的人如果不及时采取措施很可能危害社会,连累家庭

5. 讲清楚政府是立足帮忙挽救的出发点进行集中关爱

6.讲清楚如果触犯法律法规必将严惩

In English:

"6 points of clarification"
1. To make it clear why the authority cares about his/her relative.
2. To make it clear the current hard crackdown on terrorism
3. To make it clear the harm of religious extremism
4. To make it clear if his/her relative doesn't take corrective action, he might endanger the society and affect his family.
5. To make it clear the authority is sincere in helping his/her relative, and such help will be given collectively.
6. To make it clear if his /her relative breaks the law, the punishment will be meted out strictly.

 

So unprofessional and dishonest. What was the purpose of lying about documents allegedly informing "the missing are being looked after", with such suggestive intonation? To pass the idea of "looked after" as a euphemism of "vanished"?

To insinuate, without actually saying it, that there's a genocide taking place in China, so gullible and previously brainwashed Western sheep-like humans can subconsciously keep one more horrible lie about China on their messed-up memories? Well done, Goebles and Edward Bernays would be definitely proud of you! 

The document explains why and how the Chinese authorities are leading with the radicalization of some of its citizens because of Western-sponsored religious extremism that resulted in numerous terrorist attacks in China.

It clarifies that the Chinese government offers vocational centers as a measure to solve the problem with terrorism, informs that support is provided to relatives of persons in vocational centers and reminds everyone that the rule of law is to be taken very seriously.  What is wrong about this document? 

And what's wrong with the BBC? Is the BBC trying to tell us that China should rather do as rogue states like the US and UK do, drone-bombing thousands of civilians or carpet-bombing entire countries?

Or is BBC trying to tell us that China should do nothing about terrorism and allow it to freely spread inside its borders?

Combating Terrorism and Maintaining Long-term Social Stability in Xinjiang

 

Screenshot 10

01:50-01:57 "One credible estimate suggests up to a 1 million Uighurs may now be detained."

What estimate? Who suggested so? No source here, just a vague allusion to BBC's not credible source, Gay McDougall, who simply repeats CHRD and Adrian Zenz's pathetically made-up numbers. 

The BBC shamelessly invites its audience to think of genocide or mass imprisonment without even naming the supposedly credible source.

This lie, this grotesque example of anti-journalism has already been exposed by Ben Norton in his article No, the UN did not report China has ‘massive internment camps’ for Uighur MuslimsI will make an extended analysis of this lie in one of the next articles.

 

Screenshot 11

01:58-02:07 "But the BBC has seen new detailed satellite analysis of dozens of suspected camps across Xinjiang. "

No, BBC looked at GoogleMaps footage, like everyone using Google Maps or GoogleEarth can do. 

Exactly, "suspected", not proven. Speculation is not proof. 

I can do better with GoogleMaps, like analyzing dozens of very real military-based illegally installed in occupied Syria by 3 rogue states: the USA, the UK, and France.   

 

Screenshot 12

02:08-02:18 "Few of them look much like schools. This giant compound is surrounded by a high wall with 16 watchtowers."

Oh really, it "looks like schools" now? Why is this unprofessional journalist now contradicting himself?

The "compound is surrounded by a high wall with 16 watchtowers"? Wasn't precisely the existence of similar features in the previous example of a vocational center that led this very same unprofessional journalist to say that "China calls [it] a vocational center. But it looks more like a prison"? What's wrong with this guy?

What about forgetting the concepts of "school" and "prison" and start referring to vocational centers as "vocational centers"? We got it, it has a hybrid combination of both schools and prisons features, for the reasons already addressed here, but it has a name: vocational center!

 

Screenshot 13

02:18-02:31 "We try to approach the site by car (look at this), only to discover that's being expanded on a massive scale (like a city)."

BBC team approached a "suspected camp" by car, to find out that the "suspected camp" has been expanded. So what? Before talking about the expansion of it, BBC still has to prove if it is, in fact, a "camp". Otherwise, any mention of it is simply a worthless waste of time. 

And if that place is another vocational center (China never denied the existence of vocational centers), what's wrong with expanding it? Is this guy again trying to insert subliminal ideas of large-scaled repression into the subconscious of Western sheep-like humans?

Sure he is! Look at what he says next: "massive scale! Like a city!" Unfortunately (for him), this silly trick only works with sheep-like humans. Human beings able to reason will promptly ask back:

  • What's your definition of "massive"?
  • Do you have precise numbers in square meters?
  • Isn't China's size equally massive?  
  • Isn't China's population equally massive?
  • So what's the big deal?

 

Screenshot 14

02:31-02:45 "Then the police block our way. If this really is all about education, then why the effort to stop us getting close?"

Well, if BBC presence in China is really all about informing us about vocational centers, then why the effort to visit buildings under-construction instead of visiting vocational centers and showing us how a vocational center looks like from the inside?

The Chinese authorities do not stop foreign journalists from visiting vocational centers. On the contrary, they invite foreign journalists to visit vocational centers. BBC journalists should stop wasting their time and just do their job properly!

The "police blocked" his way? What's wrong with it? Can't this supposed journalist stop one minute to think about the reasons behind the creation of such facilities (eradicate terrorism)? What if this BBC journalist were a UK spy working for ETIM? Can't he understand that strategic facilities built by the government to combat terrorism can't be visited just like that, by a random guy, especially a foreign one? Can't he understand that an invitation and/or an authorization are common requirements everywhere in the world, the UK included? 

"If this really is all about education"?

No man, this is not ALL about EDUCATION. Stop playing the fool. Period.

"Effort to stop us getting close"?

Oh man, luckily for you they were Chinese police forces and not US police forces. Otherwise, by now, you would probably be seven feet under the ground. 

Another reason for not letting this BBC journalist getting closer? Easy, look at the bulldozer next to his car:

Bulldozer

Risking sounding a little bit rude, I dare to ask: Is this BBC journalist retarded or what?

Well, probably he is not. Probably, in a dishonest misleading manner, he was just trying to portrait China as a place where censorship and oppression reigns (as we are constantly invited to believe).  

 

Screenshot 15

02:45-03:43 Now we will have postmodern showtime with a mentally disturbed Ana Sebastián (unprofessional BBC spelled her name wrong).

"The satellite analysts show us a more recent image; it's clear how much the site has grown."

Really? I wonder how satellite images can be more recent than footage filmed by a BBC cameraman standing right there!

Even if it is true, and the NOT yet identified infrastructure "more than doubled" in size, what does it have to do with Chinese vocational centers? Sure, they call it a "camp", but I can call it a "university". Hard evidence of "camps", please?

"But the team is able to show that this one camp is part of something much bigger".

Really? How?

"By identifying many other secure facilities right across Xinjiang."

Give me a break! These postmodern experts can label a given infrastructure as "camp" just by finding satellite footage of other similar unidentified infrastructures in some other unidentified locations? If lack of logic were a crime, these people would definitely be sentenced to the death penalty!

What if the similar (not identical) facilities are something else like, let's say... prisons? Anything against the existence of prisons in China?

incarceration rates

Can these postmodern pseudo-experts really prove what these facilities really are? Can they prove that these facilities are somehow related to Chinese vocational centers? Can they prove that these facilities are a synonym of Uyghurs vanishing by the millions?  If yes, go on, show us the hard evidence. For now, just thin air.

"Plotting their growth over time shows just how fast they are being built".

Sure, but be amazed by the fast growth of infrastructure in China is like being amazed by the fact that 1+1=2. Can they prove some sort of correlation between this growth and BBC's insinuation of "hidden camps"? Still waiting for real evidence. For now, only thin air.

"Satellites see beyond what the human eyes can see."

Bullshit! Some can, indeed! But not these ones, capturing regular footage using the visible spectrum. Those satellites do not see beyond our sight. They just shoot pictures. You still need your EYES to look at those pictures, and then, using your postmodern skills, find "camps" or unicorns on it. 

"As the years pass, we have detected that the number of infrastructures being built... increases. And most significantly in the last 2 years."

Here we go again. She found out that the number of unidentified buildings being built in CHINA increases! Wow! Is this person really paid to come to such mesmerizing discoveries?

Oh dear Ana, why don't you analyze satellite images of the numerous Chinese projects to take Uighurs out of poverty? Your boss doesn't allow you to do so? It doesn't fit the pre-planned script to destroy China's image with dumb allegations? Or you simply don't want to acknowledge the truth?

"And prison design experts tell us this could now be one of the biggest detention facilities in the world, holding 11,000 inmates at the very least."

Really, "prison design experts"? Oh funny not funny BBC!

They say it "could", right? So what, BBC tries to prove that something exists in China, but, instead of facts, BBC only has allegations. Presumptions, speculations, guesses and any other kind of conditional assertions do not qualify as evidence. 

Maybe it is one of the biggest detention facilities in the world, maybe it is not. No one knows.

Maybe it holds at least 11,000 inmates, maybe it holds ZERO. Or maybe it holds 11,000 regular inmates totally unrelated to vocational centers. BBC reporting from the realm of vague beliefs... 

 

TO BE CONTINUED

Luís Garcia

THANK YOU GERRY BROWN AND JOYCE TAN FOR YOUR HELP.

 

 

.

translator

 

 

My Book