The story is definitely in the US’ favor geopolitically, though. Look up which countries have condemned China for human rights abuses in Xinjiang at the UN. I don’t think there are any Muslim-majority countries on that list. Compare it to the list of UN countries which have condemned the genocide of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar.
People that know the pattern can see the bullshit coming from a mile away.
Why the US all of a sudden loves the Uyghur terrorists that it was bombing with impunity not too long ago...
I.e. this is a false equivalence with what China is accused of.
What does it have to do with what is happening in Xinjiang?
The argument is that the US changing its mind on terrorists just because they are Uyghurs after bombing them shows that there is foul play involved and that the US government does not act in good faith on the matter, but instead is weaponizing the Xinjiang issue for geopolitical gain and distorting the truth to do so.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-targets-chinese-uighu...
They were considered terrorists, then at some point during the Syrian regime change project, imported Uyghur fighters became useful allies to the US along with Al Nusra, Al Qaeda and ISIS.
US is also currently rehabilitating an Al Qaeda militant's image to make him the 'Juan Guaido' of Syria...
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/abu-mohammad-al-j...
I think this is the relevant phrase, no?
Certainly, the US didn't bomb them for their ethnicity. That doesn't make the statement factually incorrect, the flip-flopping there smells like bullshit and that's what GP was alluding to if we are reading the comment in good faith.
So is the deciding factor really reliance, or is it rather US-alignment?
Besides, there is quite a bit to gain by criticizing enemies of the US and excusing crimes from allies of the US, see for example Muslim countries recognizing Israel at the behest of the US state department, so why is it not the case here also?
And the US too is a very powerful nation, even more powerful, yet many Muslim countries critiqued it.
I think the truth here is a lot more complex. The contrast between the reporting by western and non-western sources here as well as the factual inaccuracies in reporting and willingness to exaggerate lead me to conclude that while not offending China is a big thing, another is that western reporting is likely exaggerated as happened before when geopolitics made it convenient.
Why? If anything it seems likely that most negative reporting on China has been downplayed for years and is now only catching up now that Western governments are less interested in appeasement.
There are many countries were atrocities of similar scale are happening right now and that don't have much influence. That's the metric for a neutral amount of reporting, and China was over that since the 60s.