individual wrote "Do you really not see the elite & the Academic elite in particular becoming increasingly a burden on the working people ?"

Huh? What the hell ha that got to do with your original claims about Britain and France causing WW2?

That's quite a segue there.

But for what its worth, yes the unproductive classes are a drain on the society and will ultimately need to be addressed. We are seeing signs of that in pockets of the world - Melei in Argentina for example. And I've argued often in these pages that the entire Trump revolution is a reaction by the working poor against the kleptocracy of the urban elites.

Well diver dan, you originally asked for evidence of genocide in western China and I provided it.

You might want to call it something different and/or argue its justified because some of the Uighurs might be terrorists, but genocide it remains.

As such that leaves Xi Jinping in the same general class as Hitler, Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot and hardly, therefore someone to admire or offer support.

Israel does face an existential threat of genocide if it fails in in efforts to defeat Hamas and the other Iranian proxies. But the Han Chinese don't face any such threat from the Uighurs in whole or part. So the comparisons fail at the first hurdle.

mhaze

I’ll only concede one inch towards your argument for sympathy towards the Uyghurs , and that is as a comparison to the general population of Lebanon ; faced with personal existential threats to life and limb from mindless Islamic terrorist Ideologues, thankfully not all Lebanese are turned on by Hezbollah and their destabilisation of the Country. What of them, true!

With family members in both places, I hear loud and clear the personal stories of anxiety.

Clarifying ambiguity:

Both places…Israel and Lebanon!.

Posted by mhaze "Personally I don't accept that genocide is ever a legitimate response no matter the provocation."

Answer- Whenever two cultures meet- perhaps whenever two people meet- perhaps a form of genocide and racism and bias is occurring.
Clausewitz says that elements of warfare are present even in babies.
Perhaps conflict can be managed if we can come up with workable principles- in very specific situations- but not removed from the human condition.

There are also elements of cooperation- but it's naive to think that every conflict can be converted into cooperation.

It's an interesting exercise in philosophy to consider if it is still freedom if you force people to cooperate. My belief is that people have freedom in a hierarchical sandbox based on traditional social structures. All levels of hierarchies have limits to their jurisdiction. Others have said that "those that refuse limit's to their own power, shouldn't have power"- this sounds like a reasonable principle on the limits of government.

CM wrote: "Answer- Whenever two cultures meet... perhaps a form of genocide and racism and bias is occurring."

Agree with the last two but why that should led to genocide is unclear to me.

"There are also elements of cooperation- but it's naive to think that every conflict can be converted into cooperation."

Yes it is naive. Every conflict results in defeat for one or the other, or if not so resolved, the ultimate result is simply delayed for another time. If the end of a conflict doesn't result in a resolution of the original disputes in some fashion or another, then the disputes will inevitably resurface in the future. The rise of the German state in 1870 created a series of disputes with pretty much all its neighbours, a series of small wars and three major wars. the first two of those ended with a peace that didn't resolve the fundamental issues and these were ultimately only resolved with the utter destruction of the German state and its ambitions.

I'm a fan of the Athenian argument at Melos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Melos#The_Melian_Dialogue) summarised as "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".

Strong powers act in their own perceived self-interest and those around them need to find a way to live in accommodation of that.

This, as regards the Uighurs, mean they are need to find a way to exist in the context of the dominant Han culture. For many that just means getting on with their life as best they can. For some its leaving and for some its waging a Quixotic war to get themselves out from under.

I've got no arguments against the Han targeting the latter and seeking to bring them to heal. However, why that means the entire culture needs to eradicated is fraught. The Han are obviously terrified of the possibility of a radicalised Islam on their doorstep. But genocide is a sledge-hammer approach to a walnut problem. Typical of totalitarian regimes but never justified. Which is why it puts Xi in the same class as the other totalitarian mass murderers.