The US is currently in a trade war with China, and Britain is still salty about their loss of their hong kong in 1997. So it's best to get a source from a neutral country, rather than one of their current enemies.

For example, let's look at what the middle east (a region the US and Britain have also looted, colonized, and bombed for decades) has to say:

A majority of Muslim countries support China's policies in XinJiang, and don't believe the western lies told about it.. 54 Countries in total. 2, 3, 4 Supporters: Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Belarus, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, DR Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Gabon, Kuwait, Laos, Nigeria, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, UAE, Venezuela, Zimbabwe.
Egyptian media delegates provide a detailed insight of the situation in Xinjiang
A Pakistani Diplomat given full access to “re-education camps” and this is what she found.
- Despite claims of "erasing Uyghur culture", they stated: "I did not find any instance of forced labor or cultural and religious repression. The imams we met at the mosques and the students and teachers at the Xinjiang Islamic Institute told us that they enjoy freedom in practicing Islam and that the Chinese government extends support for maintenance of mosques all over Xinjiang. [...]The most visible sign of protection of Uyghur culture by the government is the government-run bilingual kindergarten schools where children learn Putonghua as well as Uyghur language and culture from a very young age."

[+] Malek061@lemmy.world -9 points 3 days ago (2 children)

"Provide sources. No not those sources!" -you

[–] CooperRedArmyDog@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago

I mean how about this, you CAN use those sources, however I will not treat them as a sacred cow and given there track record when dealing with places the US does not like it will take me almost no time to debunk the claim, or point out how the source is not credible on this topic, then you will wace your hands and scream about some liberal media reliability rateing that cannot even get left right and center correct, even in the US overton window, an then I will have to debunk the new media reliability AND remind you of the previous debunk.

OR we can skip some of the easier ones to debunk and try to have an easier time in trying to understand reality, rather than just screaming and letting rich ghools make it up for us. The choice is yours

[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago

If your sources quote "anonymous sources" and nebulous "state documents" without providing access to them, those are shit sources. I wouldn't trust them even if I didn't know their track record of making shit up as long as their CIA ~~handler~~ contact "confirms" the story.