Sorry about that, we get a lot of people coming in here and acting in bad faith, not actually interesting in learning, but just telling us we are all evil bad guys for disagreeing with them. Xinjiang is usually a focal point of that, as that is the loudest (though far from the most well sourced) anti-China narrative right now. So we can be a bit aggressive when someone asks questions that sound very similar to someone just here to be annoying and obnoxious.

Thanks for not just dismissing everyone outright because some people were being rude!

With the influx of people to Lemmy instances from Reddit, existing members will tend to be a bit defensive when state department lines get regurgitated (even when the same start department has walked back on some of its claims). Even moreso when many of these new users come in to wreck, hurl insults and then leave lol.

Here's a few more summaries with linked sources if you're interested. The most recent extremist attacks were in 2014 where dozens of innocents were murdered. While they could be found with a quick search, they barely have any views as it undermines the whole narrative.

https://lemmygrad.ml/post/1028893

https://archive.md/sYD5q

Some of the reasons why the US intelligence agencies have so much interest in turning the region into an extremist hotbed are:

• Looking on the map, the region is a critical part of the OBOR, which the "sea based powers" in the West want to destroy for their own business interests

• Similar to Afghanistan (which is geographically close to both Russia and PRC), it would create an endless supply of extremists to create futher ethnic violence and destabilisation within the whole mainland

No problem, I find most people get very angry with me if you tell them this genocide never happened. It's a bit strange.

There's a lot more info here.

I think what happened was that feds felt too powerful after the reception of their propaganda wave and in a foolhardy step thought that having a literal CIA employee doing public facing AMAs would not fire back.

They should have stuck to pseudo-academic reports by Zenz, UN reports with unverified and unnamed interviewees, armchair analysis of satellite images and so on where there is plausible deniability. But they got ahead of themselves.

I was hoping you would elaborate on wtf that means exactly, and what your source is