You asked for evidence supporting 'the accusations in Xinjiang.' I posted some. Since then, most of your reply has had nothing to do with that. None of the material you linked previously was directly related to Uighurs. And now you've come back with a second trove of links, and instead of explaining them you're inviting me to wade through a huge trove links that apparently imply somethingorother that you just can't get around to stating in plain language.

The most relevant appears to be a pair of articles that support a half-baked argument that someone's testimony has changed, although you aren't clearly stating how it changed, and it's not clear that your interpretation of that is one that I would share. And to the extent that there's an argument here at all that relates to Uighurs, it appears to depend on using a single account to disprove an entire trove of 400 interviews, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of how different kinds of evidence balance against each other.

That's in addition to the comprehension issue regarding how evidence diminishes in weight the further it is removed from the subject - the connection between stuff from 60 years ago on a different subject doesn't balance against Amnesty's work in the present the way you seem to think it does.

And again, I'm very familiar with the copy+pasted talking points from /r/Sino. For the most part, you still haven't directly addressed the veracity of the interviews, you've just attempted to turn the whole conversation into a pandora's box of digressions with unclear connections to the specific question you were originally asking about. This is more an exercise in Qanon-style free association than an expression of a coherent thought that logically addresses specific arguments.