It's saying it's deflecting against an accusation. It's clear your not able to understand basic things.
Your idea that someone who disagrees with you is a right winger proves this to me.
Finally you have no idea what the family did. It's why in a court of law we have laws about facilitation or accessory. But I think that will go over your head.
It's a hot take because while you are right, it's something that all countries do. It's just not necessarily the government that does it. Just look at the culture wars in the US. China's biggest difference is it's controlled by the government. But it also has nothing to do with Xinjiang. They do it to everyone, Hans Chinese inclusive. Technically that's what the great leap forward was. First forcing the Hans Chinese people to assimilate to the government's idea of a unified country. It worked, so they're pushing it everywhere.
Also, it's important to note that the only violent enforcement of this was on the Hans Chinese. This was Tian an men. After that they've gotten really good at subversion. There was only one suspicious killing in the HK riots for example. For as large a protest as it was, it was largely nonviolent. Compare that with BLM in the States.
That's because you aren't in a bastion of US propaganda. You know like reddit or Facebook. They don't control the narrative here.
The US does horrible things everyday, like feeding Israel weapons of genocide with no limits. Why shouldn't we talk poorly on US everyday?
You know, unlike USA, China arrested their version of Trump. Look up Jimmy Lai. Where as in the US, they're saying the leaders are these people below, in China they say the leader is the one promoting it in newspapers. Which again to your thinking is freedom of speech but also why China doesn't have that. If your promoting the riots, your the leader, not the guy on the ground.
They did find the ring leaders what are you talking about? I literally just said they cut it off at the head and feel that's enough. In fact this is one of the reasons the US keeps claiming China is oppressing people. When China feels it has enough evidence they arrest the leaders. They don't have to pass what US thinks is enough like your personal obsession with ballistics. Thus, the US complains China oppresses it's people. But the reality is China just thinks differently and doesn't want to waste time explaining it to ignorant people.
I'm actually happy we are having this discussion. I would have never realized how different the thinking is without you. Thanks, this is great. Even if you have no idea.
Oh wow, I just realized you optimize American ignorance.
After Tiananmen, the Chinese government realized their mistakes and instead of spending agonizing time to find all the assailants, they decided instead to reform. They spent the next decades doing capitalist reforms and trying to improve everyone's lives after that incident leading to today where China is unquestionably just behind USA.
After Jan 6th, US decided the best thing to do with it's time is to hunt down everyone at the Jan 6th riots. Creating a massive divide in the country. Causing friends and family to turn on each other. Because hunting down the rioters was more important to them than fixing the actual issues at hand.
You see this in the HK riots too. China only arrested the leaders, they let everyone else go. They aren't interested in identify exactly who did what, they know that cutting off the head is enough.
But then, that's the difference between western and eastern thought. Westerners are so individualistic they obsess over every individual. Eastern thought is that if we see something like this, there must be something structurally wrong and we need to fix it.
And I'll say again, after these riots is when China reformed and changed their laws, not hunt down individuals. Where as in the US, the Americans say their laws are absolute and they need to hunt down every individual.
*Edit: And while you may not agree with China's law changes and say they're oppressive, the simple reality is, when China sees structural issues like this, they're open to change.
Lol, god so you admit what I was saying
And, also, no, if they had any piece of the weapon they could id its manufacturer.
Yes, I know this, in fact I've been saying it over and over if they had the gun. But no they didn't go around digging through the corpses to find all the data. Again, I get that YOU want them to, but they didn't. And again, this is why China just says fuck you. Because it's none of your god damn business what they choose to do. They chose to sweep up everything as quickly as possible and return things to normal, not go out of their way to hunt the protestors. China isn't as revenge obsessed as Americans.
If they had the gun. Which they don't. I've also said that again and again. They needed the gun to match the barrel and bullet.
*Edit: Matching to barrel is also different than matching to type. They only kept enough to match to type unless they had the gun in question.
… Every country makes its own database, honey. There isnt a single database.
Bingo and as I said over and over China didn't invest a lot into this. So they didn't have the data to trace. It's not rocket science.
*Edit: Also, it's not like I said they couldn't trace anything. I said they could trace to type at the time, but not as detailed as manufacturer. You'd need enough data to do that and they didn't think it was important to collect to that level.
Ah yes Europe, the Asianest of continents. Wait no it's not. One of the problems China had was that the west wasn't sharing all the data with them. It's cute again that the west thinks they're the international world. But guess what, Asia never felt that way. It's literally one of the dividing issues. Again, so ignorant.
*Edit: Also it's important to note that I'm not saying China couldn't match a barrel to a gun. I'm saying China didn't have this magical database that could let it identify to the manufacturer. It simply wasn't important to China at the time to match to manufacturer. If they found the murder weapon it was enough for them to identify the murderer.
*Edit 2: Wait in 1933 was just the standardization of how to identify barrel to gun. There was no database at that time. You're just makin stuff up to trick me. WHEN DID THIS MAGICAL DATABASE EXIST!?
I see you lost and are now trying to back out of the conversation. To that I say good day.
When you understand both are whataboutism because it's about the deflection not the action or the accusation, you'll understand whataboutism.
And how do I know he has kids? I'm gonna trust an axe murderer?