SATISH SHARMA - not just Rotigraphy.: If a single picture is enough to damn China forever, then what do we do with the pictures of: Abu Ghraib. Guantánamo. Napalm in Vietnam.

https://x.com/nxt888/status/2023804953597554689

Sony Thăng

You are proving Mario’s point without realizing it. You think a photograph saves you from thinking. You post three images and act like that is the entire trial, the evidence, and the verdict. A crowd of men in blue uniforms. A wealthy media owner in a blazer. A man standing in front of tanks. All of them ripped out of context. None of them compared to the system you live in. If a single picture is enough to damn China forever, then what do we do with the pictures of: Abu Ghraib. Guantánamo. Napalm in Vietnam. Iraqi prisoners with dogs at their throats. Black men hanging from trees under smiling white crowds. Children shredded in Gaza by U.S. bombs and Israeli snipers. If your rule is "one photograph is enough," then your own empire burns first. You do not actually believe in that rule. You only apply it one way. When it is China, one image of a prison yard becomes "proof of genocide." When it is Hong Kong, one photo of a rich media boss becomes "proof of heroic dissidence," and nobody is allowed to ask who funds him, who he lobbies, or how a Western state would treat a billionaire openly coordinating with a hostile power. When it is your side, suddenly nuance appears. Context appears. "Complexity" appears. You demand full investigations, timelines, sources, and legal standards that you never require when you point at Beijing or Xinjiang. A photograph is not a moral compass. It is a tool. Who chose it. Who framed it. What they are not showing next to it. That is where propaganda lives. Mario wrote hundreds of words because he is at least trying to deal with facts, travel, court records, and the way narratives are manufactured. You responded with three images because you have learned that in your ecosystem, emotion beats evidence every time, and your only job is to feel something on command. If you want a real conversation about 1989, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, we can have one. That means numbers, archives, law, history, not just pictures you have been trained to salute. But as long as your entire case is "I have a photograph, therefore I win," you are not defending human rights or truth. You are defending a world where Western cameras are judges, Western editors are juries, and everyone else’s dead bodies only matter when they can be arranged into a convenient screenshot.

Quote