whataboutism

Nonsense word used by shithead debatebros to avoid comparative argument that would expose their hypocrisy and inconsistencies.

Edit: for clarity I will gladly condem the US. I have studied human rights most of my life and the US is the greatest offender in my eyes.

Chinese Weapons Found on Both Sides of a Growing Conflict in Eastern Congo

The ongoing civil war in the DRC demonstrates China's rising military influence in Africa

(www.btl-research.com)

Due to the way proliferation of arms works you can never ensure your weapons of destruction end up in the right hands, plus you are making a moral decision by deciding which group to arm to begin with. Even if we did give the Chinese MIC the benefit of the doubt they are still aware that they have inadvertently armed both sides.

I don't buy it as in it is objectively wrong and more disgusting acts of imperialism. You hand wave the civilian death away because you don't care.

You don't get to choose the argument. I have presented my belief and the facts that are not debatable.

borcsrt the terms. Because you lack humanity . You are simply wrong in my eyes and that is okay.

The fact that China's government has compete ownership is even more damning than a government not properly regulating a private defense contractor. At least then they could claim some ignorance to the consequences of arms proliferation.

I find your argument that China sells arms for the right reason both spurious and ideologically driven. It is not what is happening. What is happening is a corporation is making profit off of human death.

I get that you don't care. You have a million excuses and frankly I am not buying it.

You are assigning a fixed moral category to the abstract act of supplying weapons while stripping away the concrete political relationship. Arms supplied to an occupying power are not equivalent to arms supplied to a state defending its sovereignty. The relevant questions are: who receives the weapons, against whom are they used, and what political purpose do they serve?

Yes, China exports arms. But supplying Mali or Burkina Faso as they fight US/European bavked jihadist insurgencies is not equivalent to the United States arming Israel or the the RSF (through the UAE). The Sahel’s crisis was intensified by the destruction of Libya and by a regional order shaped by French domination and the CFA-franc system. Treating every arms transfer as morally identical erases the distinction between supporting sovereign resistance and enabling occupation, proxy warfare or mass killing.

China also does not have a US-style, privately dominated military-industrial complex. Its major defence enterprises are publicly owned and directed according to state defence and foreign-policy objectives. Lockheed Martin and similar firms, by contrast, are privately owned institutions whose structural interest is the continual expansion of military contracts, weapons markets and conflict. Which they then "lobby for", the west's legalised form of corruption.

You are calling me an apologist.. Because I hate the military industrial complex's business model that grows based on human suffering!? Profits for death.

Let's turn this around. Why do you defend this practice. How do you rationalize arming people and the resulting civilian death.

This is exactly what the US is doing in Palestine by supplying weapons to Israel. This is exactly what Russia has done in Africa. These countries are playing a bullshit game of imperialism causing untold suffering.

But if China does it, it is okay and we can't criticize them!? This is what I mean by disingenuous. This is not about idealism. It is about right and wrong and apparently your denialism.

At this point this is a corporation in China selling death and destruction to Africa for profit. How about you take some responsibility instead of being a apologist for human rights abuses.

Your hand waving of their industrial military complex selling weapons being used by both sides in Africa to kill civilians is disgusting and they should be ashamed of their actions. It is a disgusting example of imperialism.

The US and Russia have and still do this and it is wrong as well. No doubt that it is a violation of human rights.

Stop trying to fabricate a military action. It is silly, why do you think they fought with clubs. Denialism doesn't look good. Also they did have arms, but they were not armed with guns initially because it was never a combat operation.

The point doesn't stand? Are you providing evidence China has dropped bombs in the last fifty years. I am all ears.

I do take offense with your hand waving away China providing arms through their industrial military complex. These weapons frequently end up on both sides of a conflict and cause needless destruction and suffering.

Also the optics of doing this in Africa are disturbing to say the least. It would almost be better if they were directly selling weapon system to Russia instead of just clandestinely providing Intel, logistics, troops, training, etc. Then it would at least look like they were impartially providing weapons of destruction used to kill civilians.

Pretending this is merely a battle over imperialist nations is a disservice to what is really going on. Pretending China is not engaging in imperialist behavior by being an arms dealer is also disingenuous.

There is no doubt the the US is the most destructive nation in history and has corrupted the entire world including China. This is reality.

I appreciate your recognition that there is no need for escalation. Truly India and China are some of the more traditionally peaceful nations and due to smart negotiations limited their militarization of the border. What is disturbing is what happened. How much stress these humans must be put through to cause this behavior.

it is clear to me China is turning into a destructive force with their proliferation of their military industrial complex. This isn't the West versus the East or the global North versus the South this is simply a corporation making money from human suffering.

China was of course the aggressor

China was defending it's sovereignty. If America decided to simply start building whatever it wanted in northern Mexico or Russia simply decided to start building whatever it liked in Eastern Ukraine pre2022 I'm sure youd be raving about how terrible it was.

lack of arms pretty much discounts this as military action. These were the equivalent of army engineers, not soldiers.

Except this is nonsense and really shows how little you understand of the situation. The lack of arms is due to the "Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on Confidence-Building Measures in the Military Field Along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the India-China Border Areas" signed by both countries in 1996.

Once again the points stands

It really doesn't

Of course they have supplied plenty of bombs that were used to kill people, but I digress.

The global south being able to arm itself in the face of the largest most expansive and violent imperial power in history is good actually. Being against all violence equally is simply being for the status quo and the status quo is built on the massive immiseration of and extraction from the global south to the imperial core.

Beating each other to death with clubs makes this all better you see.

Fighting with far less lethal and destructive weapons to settle military disputes is better than bombing and shooting and annihilating entire regions and people's yes.

China was of course the aggressor and the lack of arms pretty much discounts this as military action. These were the equivalent of army engineers, not soldiers.

Once again the points stands, China has not dropped a single bomb in fifty years. Of course they have supplied plenty of bombs that were used to kill people, but I digress.

Beating each other to death with clubs makes this all better you see.

I could only imagine the massacre if the US would have been involved, thank goodness they were not.