Comments by "N Velsen" (@nvelsen1975) on "Anders Puck Nielsen" channel.

  1. 1
  2. 1
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. So.... how do you explain the census showing there's more Uyghurs year after year? Weird kind of genocide huh? And how do we fit in that people only got volunteered for re-education based on a threat matrix based off of stuff like listening to extremist hate-preachers, showing signs of religious extremism etc? Wouldn't you just kill indiscriminately in a genocide? Actually, why are they re-educated and released? Why do Uyghurs show up on the other end of China being given a job and a place to stay? Isn't that incredibly self-defeating in a genocide? Anyway, don't listen to Russian misinformation (Russia invented the BS of 'East Turkestan' during their invasions of China) and to jihadi misinformation. What happened is Uyghurs did that, perpetrated systematic ethnic cleansing against Kyrgyz, Khazars, Han, Hui and some others during WW2, then began being fed hate-propaganda from the Middle East same as happened in Indonesia. Then the Ugyhurs went on a brutal 40 years rampage of terrorist strikes in China. After the massive 2014 Kunming attack, Beijing had had enough and dealt with the problem. Since the problem is islamic extremism, that's what has to go. That's how I walk up to a mosque in 2019 and there's an effing big sign next to it that says "The only correct islam is Chinese islam". They didn't destroy the mosque, or close it, but Beijing wants to make damn sure nobody going in there thinks "Oooh, the nice man from Dubai is telling me to go kill unbelievers, and gives me dollars to do so".
    1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. There's so many unknowns though, that both arguments could be correct. And so many unknowns that require assumptions by both arguments. In this video too: The convicts mostly left Wagner after 6 months? Do we know that for a fact, or is it in assumption? And what about the contracts we know of that involved 1 month cooldown time after which they can be called up again? Would they not simply have been retained in breach of contract or after cooldown? 5:28 Yes they would've been redirected, possibly / probably into less favourable conditions where Russia couldn't shell Ukraine from 3 directions with impunity like happened in Bachmut's final stage, that's part of Kofman's argument and why it's a good argument: Ukraine could've had better results elsewhere. (could have, not saying would have) But that requires us to weigh the tactical situation of the final 3-4 weeks against the situation if other fronts were reinforced, which we simply don't know. 5:58 And we don't know what would've happened if Ukraine withdraw the last 3-4 weeks. Maybe all that saved manpower would've simply been spent on a harder fight against Russia. Heck, maybe Wagner would've captured Gerasimov and Shoigu if they had 2000-3000 extra guys to start the uprising with, who knows? So is destroying Wagner good? Do we even know who exactly was lost in Ukraine? For all we know many defenders lost their lives in crazy streetfighting while they would've been better doing the same in more open territory. Urban combat tends to be an infantry quality equaliser, and we know that most Ukrainian infantry is superior to most Russian infantry, suggesting Ukraine would have at least one advantage extra if Bachmut have been given up 3 weeks earlier. Kofman's argument suffers from the exact same reliance on assumptions though.
    1