Comment on [deleted]
MalaiseMayonnaise@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoWhat did they make up? You made a claim without backing it up.
Comment on [deleted]
MalaiseMayonnaise@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoWhat did they make up? You made a claim without backing it up.
Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
Wrong, they’ve made a claim without backing it up. Did you not notice that? Maybe take a second to think about why
MalaiseMayonnaise@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
You can look up anything in that comment. Very easily. The follow up comment is “you made that all up” which seems would require some level of proof, seeing as the other commenter gave examples which are verifiable.
Myanmar
9 dash line
Crimes against Uyghurs
Belt and road debt trap
So how about you offer something more than “MaDe iT uP” which displays the same debate skills as a 4 year old.
Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
Wow four whole “sources”! Too bad they completely fail to prove any of the inane claims presented here, as usual
First link: “China takes a multipronged approach to secure its investments in Myanmar”, from Janes , “The source for commercially available military intelligence”. Contains exactly zero evidence to support the claim that China is supporting both sides of the conflict in Myanmar, and is published by an MIC data broker owned by a fucking private equity firm.
Second link: “The Nine-Dash Line in the South China Sea: History, Status, and Implications”, full version paywalled, summary is uselessly vague but that’s ok because the original comment we’re discussing didn’t even present any claims, just says “12 dash line” which is also not even the name lol
Third link: “Persecution of Uyghurs in Xinjiang:Torture, Crimes Against Humanity, and Genocide” from the Human Rights Research Center lol. And what are their sources? Oh, just the CIA! Totally credible lol, unlike the unified majority of muslim nations on earth apparently Image
Fourth link: “‘Tidal wave’: How 75 nations face Chinese debt crisis in 2025”, you clearly didn’t bother reading past the headline or you’d have known that this article directly contradicts the claims you’re defending
From the article: "Rhodium consulting group looked at 38 Chinese debt renegotiations with 24 developing countries in 2019 and concluded that Beijing’s leverage was limited, with many of the renegotiations resolved in favour of the borrower. According to Rhodium, developing countries had restructured roughly $50bn of Chinese loans in the decade before its 2019 study was published, with loan extensions, cheaper financing and debt forgiveness the most frequent outcomes. Elsewhere, a 2020 study by the China Africa Research Initiative at Johns Hopkins University found that, between 2000 and 2019, China cancelled $3.4bn of debt in Africa and a further $15bn was refinanced. No assets were seized. In 2022, the Debt Justice Group estimated that African governments owed three times more to private financial groups than to China, charging double the interest in the process. “Developing country debt to China is less than what is owed to both private bondholders and multilateral development banks (MDBs),” says Kevin Gallagher, director of the Boston University Global Development Policy Center. “So, Lowy’s focus on China lacks context. The truth is, even if you remove China from the creditor picture, lots of poor countries would still be in debt distress,” Gallagher told Al Jazeera. A crucial aspect about Chinese lending,” said Gallagher, “is that it tends to be long-term and growth enhancing. That’s precisely why a lot of it is focused on infrastructure investment. Western lenders tend to get in and out faster and charge higher rates.”
You’re either an incurable moron or a fed, embarassing either way
MalaiseMayonnaise@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Cherry picking lines isn’t proving it’s made up dipshit. You need to provide sources of your own, not just choose quotes and then go “hur dur my point” without even backing it up. Tankies stay retarded. Let everyone else know how Putin and Xis boots taste.