I'm curious which propaganda outlet is eventually going to publish this thinly-veiled terrorism apologia.

The only thing that's missing is the donation link at the end.

A #thread 🧵

https://twitter.com/robertsreport/status/1382739592101650443?s=20
Besides projection of Western crimes of imperialism and outright terrorism apologia, the thread is filled with textbook examples of strawman arguments, like this ridiculously obvious one here. I'm not going to address every single one in his thread, as there are too many.
What could be a rightful criticism of the ambiguity in conceptualizing terrorism –"one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"– is for Roberts a motivation to reject the term completely, based on the actual historical and ongoing misuse of that term by Western states.
The Chinese state, on the contrary, didn't release the footage of these attacks until 5 years after they happened. Instead, news and outrage both were suppressed. Why would they skip such opportunity to dehumanize a Muslim population "they don't like"? https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-12-05/Fighting-terrorism-in-Xinjiang-MaNLLDtnfq/index.html
We also shouldn't call those drivers terrorists, according to Roberts, this is only playing into the state's sinister manipulation. The state is always bad, right? 🙄
The war on terror started with the invasion of Afghanistan, so it's strange that Roberts compares it here with Iraq. But maybe he's perfectly aware that the "[obliteration of] the native peoples" is the WMD of our time?
Notice how he keeps projecting throughout, from the dehumanization of muslims to the "[Obliteration of] the native peoples", which is a perfect description of the history of the United States. It's a despicable relativization of the latter, so he's the actual genocide denier here
Now let's come to the "inaccuracies". So according to Roberts it's "Wrong!"to say terrorism was spiraling out of control" and remains a threat. But this collage of media headlines of attacks from 2010-2016 suggests otherwise.
The frequency of attacks and number of casualties has been comparable to those of the terrorist attacks in Western Europe in the 2010s, which was THE main topic for years and years in the media in Western Europe. But I guess it wasn't a problem for Roberts.
Now Roberts gets outrightly dishonest. One could criticize that the original author Weijian Shan of the @SCMPNews opinion article subsumed the 2009 riots under a enumeration of terrorist attacks. But judge for yourself whether Roberts' citation here is fair.
We all know that every peaceful protest evolves naturally into a killing spree which leaves over 200 dead, and it's perfectly justified because of all these injustices, like *checksnotes* executing the perpetrators of the Shaoguan incident not within a week after the fact.
"2 of 4", "violent incidents", "allegedly" "do appear"

If it wasn't obvious until now, his language is relativization and apologia of terrorism 101.
They didn't claim responsibility? Really?
Small group that ceased to exist in 2003, but nevertheless was bombed by the US Air Force in 2018?
Yeah, it's just a "small number of disgruntled Uyghurs", no global network, but already contradicting his statement in the next tweet.
And I'm so glad they're not Islamic State, but rather only Al-Qaeda affiliated, pheew! Also it makes a total difference if your head's gonna be cut off by a mercenary instead of a terrorist.
Resistance to the state is a-priori good!

This is so clearly written for the anarchist-leaning Western left.
The rest is basically a repetition. China is as bad as the West's "original sin" (the unavoidable fall of man from paradise?? Why are these guys all white saviour Christian missionaries?)
Oh, I forgot. All of the above is invalid, of course, since I haven't bought his book. Did I say the funding link is missing at the end? Guess I have to correct that, too.
Also, I didn't cover here all by a far stretch https://twitter.com/unrealdt1/status/1383098157957935110?s=20
As I said, I didn't cover all. Thanks @GroseTimothy for finding this further dishonest citation https://twitter.com/abovetheclouds/status/1383110475148374016?s=20
Oh, and @chinahand did an episode on Roberts' book, so maybe give his podcast some support before you hand your money to terrorism sympathizers. Just sayin' https://twitter.com/chinahand/status/1383118592355438595?s=19
Daniel Dumbrill has been digging in his book, and found more terrorism apologia. https://twitter.com/DanielDumbrill/status/1383532036925706241?s=20
Others found more inaccuracies in his book, eg him attributing the famous "breaking their roots" quote falsely to a Han official. https://twitter.com/diemen1111/status/1384647539195092992?s=20
…which, again, is (deliberately?) mistranslated. 🙄 https://twitter.com/unrealdt1/status/1384781489682878466?s=20
The "Break their lineages" statement to be originating from a Han official isn't even warrented by the soure Roberts cited in his book. So where did he get that from?
https://www.afp.com/en/inside-chinas-internment-camps-tear-gas-tasers-and-textbooks
You can follow @abovetheclouds.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: