One shouldn't lump all antagonism towards a government together as a single thing.
You can live in China, think the US government has a history of war crimes, subjugation, imperialism, plunder, genocide, and geopolitical treachery, and yet not want to go to war with the US.
You can live in the US, think the Chinese government is engaging in genocide and creating an uniquely dystopian surveillance state where all thought and behavior can be monitored and shaped, and yet not want to go to war with China.
I'm sure this trap is a real phenomenon, but pretty much every large human empire has been powered by a helm regularly committing horrible atrocities, so one hegemon will probably always be able to legitimately condemn a up-and-comer, and vice versa.
I think it can be a bit dangerous to counter such discussion with accusations of war-seeking, because it lets rulers get away with more than they should. At least unless you have specific evidence suggesting the discussion isn't simply a case of people who are genuinely concerned about people for humanist reasons.
Does anyone think the USA actually cares about central asian muslims? With our record and the records of our allies?
Or is this coming from collective anxiety over being eclipsed?
So to answer your question, yes to the former question. Maybe yes to the latter question too, but as an "and" not an "or".
I'm not necessarily ethically opposed to assassination. But better to let 1000 terrorists and murderers live than to kill one innocent person. Assassinations should be done with pistols and poison, not explosives.
Not sure that's a true statement.
I mean, that’s kind of a human thing.
Think Iraq, all the evidence of WMD
To me it sounds like they're saying we ought to be wary of the threat China poses to freedom. If they thought we should go to war they would say so. I only see people here calling for awareness and preparedness, not war.