“Both sources”? The Carrd contains tons of resources with the “Resource Compilation” itself containing hundreds of sources. There is also a source section proving western promotion of terrorism in the region but this is naturally ignored. And yes, it is justified to talk of the “western narrative” when the vast majority of “research” comes from the U.S. government or NGOs affiliated with it. Notice the thread mentioning the repeated use of ASPI (a front for western imperialism) in sourcing (he forgot to mention Uyghur Human Rights Project, an NGO based in DC, which is repeatedly sourced in the report and was founded with an NED grant; I hate to repeat myself but current president of the NED Carl Gershman said, “We should not have to do this kind of work covertly. It would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the C.I.A. We saw that in the 60’s, and that’s why it has been discontinued. We have not had the capability of doing this, and that’s why the endowment was created” and the founder of the NED said, "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA”; the report is citing the CIA).

It’s not genocide if it’s part of (forced) family planning and demolishing mosques is ok because there there are still some left.

Uyghurs have never been part of some special family planning that exceeds other groups. Many ethnic minorities (including Uyghurs) were excluded from the one-child policy (which no longer exists) for some time, and when integrated into general family planning alongside other minorities were not singled out, so what is this point anyway? Family planning itself is a result of mass-line consultation and democratic procedures supervised by the CPC, which has over 90% support of the people and 10% of the population as members; it is simplistic to talk of “forced” family planning.

In regards to “demolishing mosques”, the report talks of the demolition of mosques (point 85) but without citation. Furthermore, a note on page 26 reads, “However, there is no official data available with respect to the locations of these sites, which has made it more difficult to verify alleged patterns of destruction.” The report continues, “Nevertheless, several researchers, predominantly based on detailed analysis of publicly available satellite imagery, consider that a large number of mosques have been destroyed in XUAR over the last years.” Very well, and what is the citation for this? Australian Strategic Policy Institute, of course. There is no evidence of forced “tearing down” of mosques, and satellite images have been abused in this manner before and contain no context of affairs relating to this. Having one of the highest mosque densities in the world is not something to scoff at, and if the Chinese government is attempting to eradicate mosques, they’re not doing a good job.

Tourists not visiting the internment camps is proof that nothing is happening. Also, people dying in Yemen somehow [disproves] events in China.

This is a very interesting thing to select to reply to. For one thing, this is merely a note accompanying this comment “Even if you believe the western establishment narrative, AP News has produced an article largely adhering to this but noting based on their visit that the camps and repression have been removed.” This was naturally not replied to, but let us investigate this more closely: you deliberately cut off the comment on the other end as well. My full note was:

Despite Xinjiang being open to tourism, not a single Uyghur person has been demonstrated to have been killed in captivity by the Chinese government (all while hundreds of thousands of civilians are [confirmed to be] killed in the genocide in Yemen, a region which has been largely artificially closed off). It’s strange that China has roughly 54 other ethnic groups which have been relatively unscathed, including other Muslim-majority ethnic groups such as the Hui ethnic group, which is larger than the Uyghur population.

Of course the final sentence is cut off, and this is quite fine (since one cannot expect someone to reply to an entire two sentences), but you also cut off the end of the parenthesis in the first comment: a region which has been largely artificially closed off. This allows you to say, “Tourists not visiting the internment camps is proof that nothing is happening”, but this makes no sense if it followed the mention of Yemen being artificially closed off in comparison to Xinjiang being open to tourism. There is a massive genocidal operation in a region open for tourism, and yet not a single death at the hands of the government has been identified, as compared to the actual genocide in Yemen where hundreds of thousands have been identified as killed in a completely closed off region due to Saudi occupation? What is more, the BBC did film a visit to one of these facilities. Many Islamic nations have also visited Xinjiang in envoys but this will naturally not convince you.