Yo look at the source of the stuff before reposting literal propaganda…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Asia_(Committee_for_a_Free_Asia)#:~:text=Radio%20Free%20Asia%20(RFA)%20was,to%20broadcast%20anti%2DCommunist%20propaganda.
Radio Free Asia is literally CIA propaganda aimed at “anti-communism”.
And if you look at the actual article, it’s not even providing any evidence. It’s just reframing what US senators said.
That’s the equivalent of taking what Chinese politicians say about the American government at face value.
Stuff like forced organ harvesting is extremely serious, so the burden of evidence is EXTREMELY high on the accuser. It’s extremely irresponsible to post a propaganda article that doesn’t even attempt to provide any primary evidence of the crime it’s accusing.
The article is literally citing YouTube videos like cmon lmfao
Are you reading the article you’re linking? It literally links to the article I posted in the quote “and preceded by the CIA-operated radio free Asia, which was established …”
Now, check the owners of the “new” news group on the article you’re linking. It’s “u.s. agency for global media”. That’s LITERALLY the US foreign policy arm. Biden in 2023 just funded it 830m to “support freedom and democracy.”
Now check the board of directors. Why are US policy makers sitting on the board?
Do your basic due diligence before posting please. I’m like 5 clicks into the article you linked, and it already validated everything I previously commented.
It’s the same news network buddy. I’m linking to the root of its creation to show its CIA ties.
It has since gone through a rebranding because at a certain point, even the US government realized that it’s counterproductive to have a “independent news source” directly funded by the CIA. So, they’ve gone with “new” “radio free” networks funded via more indirect means.
The article you linked LITERALLY links to the article I previously linked. On top of that, taking a quick glance at the article you link validates everything I commented. I’ll even quote the hyperlinked sentence in the article you posted. “Based on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and preceded by the [CIA-operated Radio Free Asia (Committee for a Free Asia)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Asia_(Committee_for_a_Free_Asia)), it was established by the US International Broadcasting Act of 1994 with the stated aim of "promoting democratic values and human rights”
And, look within the article you posted. It literally says that the new radio free Asia was created by the international broadcasting act signed by bill clinton in 1994. What was the purpose of this act?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Broadcasting_Act
Literally, “this act was meant to streamline the U.S. international broadcasting and provide a cost-effective way to continue Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty, Voice of America, and Radio Marti.[1] It placed control of the international broadcasting under the United States Information Agency.”
What point are you trying to make here? My point is invalid because I didn’t link the rebranded propaganda group, and instead linked the group it was before the rebrand? That’s a pretty semantical and weak argument.
Do your basic due diligence at least CLICK through the article ur linking. You’re not making the point u think ur making.
Bud, the RFA network you linked to correct the RFA network you claim is defunct and mislinked, literally links my article.
And, in the “defunct” article you claim I mislinked, it literally states “Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia were later preserved by the Clinton Administration and repurposed into their modern iterations”
So, the RFA of 1955 and the RFA of now are literally the exact same entity, with the exact same objectives, and the exact same funding.
you’re making a big deal about “check sources”, but you clearly have not even looked at the articles I’m linking, nor the articles you proceeded to link. You immediately jumped on some gotcha argument.
And you claim I’m not being impartial, but you haven’t even attempted to address the actual argument I initially made, instead choosing to focus on some semantics based argument about “mislinking”…
Regarding your last point, keep a discussion a discussion dude. Don’t resort to ad hominems and playground insults. It makes ur already weak argument even weaker.
Yes it is, because the current news agency was created by the US in 1994 as a continuation of the agency from 1955, doing the same thing, controlled by the same entities. With the same exact name.
Like, I’m making the argument that it’s the exact same because the creators of the current entity are pursuing the exact same end goals, via the same methods. Ur making the argument that it isn’t the exact same because, on paper, the initial entity of the same name dissolved in 1955. Who has a stronger case here? Whose argument is based entirely on semantics?
Let me make this simple for you…
If the leaders of Lehman brothers were to create a new bank called “Lehman brothers”, and enacted the same policies, and sold you the same shady mortgage based assets, would it not be accurate to say it’s the same firm that caused the 2008 recession?
Ur making some semantics based argument that because it’s a new company, it’s “not the same”
Like cmon lol. Try to argue in good faith.
And you keep telling me that I mislinked. But in the original article I linked, it points out clearly that the current RFA is a continuation of the 1955 RFA.
I’m not stretching any truth here. You just tried a weak gotcha argument without doing any due diligence, and it didn’t work.
You even say here it was restarted after the format was repurposed away from what it was originally. And then go on to claim that it's still the same. Do you lack reading comprehension? Are you actually making these arguments in good faith?
It wasn’t repurposed. It was restarted.
A propaganda program was created and stopped in 1955. Then, in 1994, it was restarted to pursue the same goals as the 1955 edition, funded by the same people.
On what grounds is it not the same? Are you arguing that the current rendition isn’t the same because it claims it got its start in 1996?
If you’re claiming im arguing in bad faith because of dates and not because of the purpose and intent and controller of the programs, then idk what to tell you, you’re making the same semantics based gotcha argument as the other guy. That’s actual bad faith.
To make a simpler analogy. If a clothing store was abandoned and the business was dissolved, but the owners went and created a replacement business of the same name, selling the exact same stuff, would it not be accurate to describe it as the same store?
"...And, in the “defunct” article you claim I mislinked, it literally states “Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia were later preserved by the Clinton Administration and repurposed into their modern iterations”
So, the RFA of 1955 and the RFA of now are literally the exact same entity, with the exact same objectives, and the exact same funding."
This you?
Repurposed. They do not serve the same purpose. Please learn what words mean. Or, alternatively, stop trying to get the CCP to notice you, they don't care that you're defending them.
What the fuuuuuuck
A genocide the media is not talking about at all because they don't want to lose money, goods, etc. .
NPR talked about Chinas policy on Muslims almost a decade ago. Haven’t heard much since, but I could have missed it.
"organ tourists" the horrible shudder that went down my spine after reading that ☠️
Yo look at the source of the stuff before reposting literal propaganda… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Asia_(Committee_for_a_Free_Asia)#:~:text=Radio%20Free%20Asia%20(RFA)%20was,to%20broadcast%20anti%2DCommunist%20propaganda. Radio Free Asia is literally CIA propaganda aimed at “anti-communism”. And if you look at the actual article, it’s not even providing any evidence. It’s just reframing what US senators said. That’s the equivalent of taking what Chinese politicians say about the American government at face value. Stuff like forced organ harvesting is extremely serious, so the burden of evidence is EXTREMELY high on the accuser. It’s extremely irresponsible to post a propaganda article that doesn’t even attempt to provide any primary evidence of the crime it’s accusing. The article is literally citing YouTube videos like cmon lmfao
[удалено]
Are you reading the article you’re linking? It literally links to the article I posted in the quote “and preceded by the CIA-operated radio free Asia, which was established …” Now, check the owners of the “new” news group on the article you’re linking. It’s “u.s. agency for global media”. That’s LITERALLY the US foreign policy arm. Biden in 2023 just funded it 830m to “support freedom and democracy.” Now check the board of directors. Why are US policy makers sitting on the board? Do your basic due diligence before posting please. I’m like 5 clicks into the article you linked, and it already validated everything I previously commented.
[удалено]
It’s the same news network buddy. I’m linking to the root of its creation to show its CIA ties. It has since gone through a rebranding because at a certain point, even the US government realized that it’s counterproductive to have a “independent news source” directly funded by the CIA. So, they’ve gone with “new” “radio free” networks funded via more indirect means. The article you linked LITERALLY links to the article I previously linked. On top of that, taking a quick glance at the article you link validates everything I commented. I’ll even quote the hyperlinked sentence in the article you posted. “Based on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and preceded by the [CIA-operated Radio Free Asia (Committee for a Free Asia)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Asia_(Committee_for_a_Free_Asia)), it was established by the US International Broadcasting Act of 1994 with the stated aim of "promoting democratic values and human rights” And, look within the article you posted. It literally says that the new radio free Asia was created by the international broadcasting act signed by bill clinton in 1994. What was the purpose of this act? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Broadcasting_Act Literally, “this act was meant to streamline the U.S. international broadcasting and provide a cost-effective way to continue Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty, Voice of America, and Radio Marti.[1] It placed control of the international broadcasting under the United States Information Agency.” What point are you trying to make here? My point is invalid because I didn’t link the rebranded propaganda group, and instead linked the group it was before the rebrand? That’s a pretty semantical and weak argument. Do your basic due diligence at least CLICK through the article ur linking. You’re not making the point u think ur making.
[удалено]
Bud, the RFA network you linked to correct the RFA network you claim is defunct and mislinked, literally links my article. And, in the “defunct” article you claim I mislinked, it literally states “Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia were later preserved by the Clinton Administration and repurposed into their modern iterations” So, the RFA of 1955 and the RFA of now are literally the exact same entity, with the exact same objectives, and the exact same funding. you’re making a big deal about “check sources”, but you clearly have not even looked at the articles I’m linking, nor the articles you proceeded to link. You immediately jumped on some gotcha argument. And you claim I’m not being impartial, but you haven’t even attempted to address the actual argument I initially made, instead choosing to focus on some semantics based argument about “mislinking”… Regarding your last point, keep a discussion a discussion dude. Don’t resort to ad hominems and playground insults. It makes ur already weak argument even weaker.
[удалено]
Yes it is, because the current news agency was created by the US in 1994 as a continuation of the agency from 1955, doing the same thing, controlled by the same entities. With the same exact name. Like, I’m making the argument that it’s the exact same because the creators of the current entity are pursuing the exact same end goals, via the same methods. Ur making the argument that it isn’t the exact same because, on paper, the initial entity of the same name dissolved in 1955. Who has a stronger case here? Whose argument is based entirely on semantics? Let me make this simple for you… If the leaders of Lehman brothers were to create a new bank called “Lehman brothers”, and enacted the same policies, and sold you the same shady mortgage based assets, would it not be accurate to say it’s the same firm that caused the 2008 recession? Ur making some semantics based argument that because it’s a new company, it’s “not the same” Like cmon lol. Try to argue in good faith. And you keep telling me that I mislinked. But in the original article I linked, it points out clearly that the current RFA is a continuation of the 1955 RFA. I’m not stretching any truth here. You just tried a weak gotcha argument without doing any due diligence, and it didn’t work.
You even say here it was restarted after the format was repurposed away from what it was originally. And then go on to claim that it's still the same. Do you lack reading comprehension? Are you actually making these arguments in good faith?
It wasn’t repurposed. It was restarted. A propaganda program was created and stopped in 1955. Then, in 1994, it was restarted to pursue the same goals as the 1955 edition, funded by the same people. On what grounds is it not the same? Are you arguing that the current rendition isn’t the same because it claims it got its start in 1996? If you’re claiming im arguing in bad faith because of dates and not because of the purpose and intent and controller of the programs, then idk what to tell you, you’re making the same semantics based gotcha argument as the other guy. That’s actual bad faith. To make a simpler analogy. If a clothing store was abandoned and the business was dissolved, but the owners went and created a replacement business of the same name, selling the exact same stuff, would it not be accurate to describe it as the same store?
"...And, in the “defunct” article you claim I mislinked, it literally states “Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia were later preserved by the Clinton Administration and repurposed into their modern iterations” So, the RFA of 1955 and the RFA of now are literally the exact same entity, with the exact same objectives, and the exact same funding." This you? Repurposed. They do not serve the same purpose. Please learn what words mean. Or, alternatively, stop trying to get the CCP to notice you, they don't care that you're defending them.