Possible Chinese involvement in fighting ISIS

[AssassinsMace]

不，中国很在乎的，每时每刻都在关注他们！因为他们的行为是反人类。所有人的公敌！只是中国的政策是不干预别的国家政治！如果isis侵犯中国或者他们寻求中国军事援助，绝对会出兵进攻他们。

Please write in English in here. If I understood your post correctly... I'm sure China is concerned. If China were to use Western logic, ISIS is already in China simply because it has been discovered there are Chinese Muslims fighting for ISIS now. China's not sending troops to fight ISIS in the Middle East if that's what you're arguing Beijing would if attacked by ISIS. The simple fact is civilians in China have been hacked to death by terrorists. It's no different from being as horrific as being beheaded. The critics of China will argue it's different. That's the problem because they're saying Western interests are more important than Chinese interests. China should be keeping its forces at home to fight them not far away from China to punish ISIS because Americans/Westerners were beheaded.

Let's look at it this way. The US is the leader of the most powerful military alliance of countries in the history of the world. And that alliance is demanding China send soldiers to deal with ISIS in the Middle East? None of the countries in their powerful alliance are stepping forward immediately? What about the lauded changing of the Japanese constitution to expand military powers including assisting allies? Where are they in this time of need? Yeah but somehow China is obligated not an ally that signed the contract. No tears for Chinese civilians killed by terrorists. Add it all together and it says send in the worthless Chinese as cannon fodder to fight their battles. "My life is too precious to waste." All because they refuse to recognize what they would see as outright inexcusable terrorism if it happened to them. Why aren't the Japanese stepping up after their changing of the constitution perfectly fits such an occasion? Maybe because they're too afraid of ISIS setting their sights on the Japanese? No wonder they're demanding China send in the troops instead of any alliance member.

All this because they refuse to change the narrative set in their China policy that has built distrust. They will no way ever in the slightest portray China as being the one wronged. The only way China will ever be in their good graces is a long history of obedience and the Chinese have to accept their place of being less not equal. When they won't give up anything in the slightest, that's what it means. It's more important to stand their ground on China even when alarm bells are ringing where a non-Chinese threat is attacking them.

 

[xiabonan]

Personally I think the non-interference policy is serving us well.

All the victims of ISIS' cruel beheading are White Westerners.

Yes we do have a problem of terrorism, but the Xinjiang region has always been a troubled area. There's a long history of that. We must recognise it and fight it.

Look at countries like Japan. South Korea. Or places like Taiwan, Singapore. These are all important allies of the US, and they have largely played non-interference policy as well. As US allies they could send personnel and fighter jets and station them at NATO bases in the region, but they didn't do it.

And these Asian countries are largely undisturbed by terrorism. It's almost as if they're completely stealthy on the terrorists' radars.

I personally doubt that terrorism can be eradicated. How it sure can be contained and its damage minimised. But if the West continues what it has been doing, I'm afraid this could only fuel the growth of terrorism.

 

[Blackstone]

Personally I think the non-interference policy is serving us well.

China might have a preference for "non-interference" in other countries' domestic affairs, but when push comes to shove, China has demonstrated that it is willing and able to interfere when it serves its national interests. Such was the case when it evacuated its citizens from Libya, and such was the case when it interjected itself in law enforcement of Myanmar, Laos, and Thailand, after drug lord Naw Kham murdered 13 Chinese civilians working on the Mekong River. Going forward, China will find it increasingly difficult to hold its "non-interference" stance as America reduces her forces in far flung areas, and China can't free ride as it did in the past. We'll see what happens to its "non-interference" policy then.

All the victims of ISIS' cruel beheading are White Westerners.

Nope. Most of ISIS's beheading victims were Muslims in areas they overran.

Yes we do have a problem of terrorism, but the Xinjiang region has always been a troubled area. There's a long history of that. We must recognise it and fight it.

Historically speaking, Xinjiang and Tibet are quiet when China's strong and chaotic when it's weak. It's unusual for either to be troublesome when China's on the rise. The fact Xinjiang is becoming more and more violent, even with strong Chinese presence, is bad omen for the coming decades. It's in China's interest to cooperate and coordinate with Western nations, especially the United States, to combat Islamist groups in regions where China has interests and investments to protect; which means the entire world.

Look at countries like Japan. South Korea. Or places like Taiwan, Singapore. These are all important allies of the US, and they have largely played non-interference policy as well. As US allies they could send personnel and fighter jets and station them at NATO bases in the region, but they didn't do it.

Said countries are all free riding on US protection, that's why they spend less and less on defense. Less spending means few power projection capabilities far away from home, ergo they can't militarily interfere in other countries' affairs even if they want to. Japan is reversing the trend, but still spends much lower than 2% of its GDP on defense and wouldn't have a lot of power projection platforms for many years to come.

And these Asian countries are largely undisturbed by terrorism. It's almost as if they're completely stealthy on the terrorists' radars.

Au contraire mon ami, there are lots of terrorism in Asian countries. A partial list is;

1) Japan had homegrown terrorism periodically, and the 1995 subway sarin gas attack wouldn't be the last
2) There are regular and sustained terrorism in Thailand, lots of it related to the South Thailand insurgency
3) Philippines has suffered from terrorism for many decades by Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Moro National Front. There are many other splinter groups in the Philippines committing terror and mayhem.
4) Too many terror-related incidents in Pakistan to count
5) Long history of terrorism in parts of India, going back to the founding of the nation
6) Violent anti-Muslim Buddhist riots that terrorize local Muslim residents in Burma

I personally doubt that terrorism can be eradicated. How it sure can be contained and its damage minimised. But if the West continues what it has been doing, I'm afraid this could only fuel the growth of terrorism.

Extremists of all kinds do things for their own power and aggrandizement, and Islamist terror is on the rise. If the West left the Middle East, then those people would fight among themselves or even look for other victims in the area, like the Chinese. I'll be the first to admit Western countries made a mess of it after WWI, but the area wasn't peaceful before the arrival of the West and wouldn't be peaceful even if every single foreigner packed up and left.

 

[Brumby]

Personally I think the non-interference policy is serving us well.

Only if you employ the calculus with the primary view of deriving benefits on the back of efforts of others. China's ability to deploy military capabilities far from its shores are growing and understandably so because of its economic interest around the world. The current ISIL terrorist situation is a timely opportunity for China to participate in an international effort of the willing and able to counter a threat that is common across and including to that of China. Hiding behind the veil of non-interference will just reinforce the notion of the behaviour of a free loader. You may not agree, but the arguments being put forth is rather weak.

 

[Brumby]

Extremists of all kinds do things for their own power and aggrandizement, and Islamist terror is on the rise. If the West left the Middle East, then those people would fight among themselves or even look for other victims in the area, like the Chinese. I'll be the first to admit Western countries made a mess of it after WWI, but the area wasn't peaceful before the arrival of the West and wouldn't be peaceful even if every single foreigner packed up and left.

The issue of Islamic terrorism will never go away but will just morph into different degrees depending on the vigilance of efforts or lack of to deal with it. It is ideologically driven and its not an economic issue. It is just a convenient way for those who want to dance around the issue to ensure political correctness. I am threading on a sensitive subject and will limit my comments to two main drivers; (i) The Koran being a direct revelation of god; and (ii) salvation is dependent on a scale that weigh behaviour. I am happy to debate this privately.

 

[plawolf]

Religious extremists are not limited to Koran readers only.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

But for a quirk of fate in where they were born, the two women in that story could easily have lived exactly the same life as the other.

 

[Blackstone]

Religious extremists are not limited to Koran readers only.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

But for a quirk of fate in where they were born, the two women in that story could easily have lived exactly the same life as the other.

The article you linked is an abuse of moral equivalency. The comparisons are easily disproved by asking the simple question how many Islamist women in ISIS/ISIL are terrorizing and murdering innocent people, and how many Tea Party women are terrorizing and murdering innocent people? Answer to the former is many and to the latter is none.

 

[Equation]

The article you linked is an abuse of moral equivalency. The comparisons are easily disproved by asking the simple question how many Islamist women in ISIS/ISIL are terrorizing and murdering innocent people, and how many Tea Party women are terrorizing and murdering innocent people? Answer to the former is many and to the latter is none.

It's an example of how some people take their faith too far all because they fear the unknown about life after death when many times the faith itself teaches to accept death as a natural occurrence. A bunch of religious psychos to me, no matter who they are.

 

[Blackstone]

It's an example of how some people take their faith too far all because they fear the unknown about life after death when many times the faith itself teaches to accept death as a natural occurrence. A bunch of religious psychos to me, no matter who they are.

Separate Islamist, who are probably certifiable psychos, from the vast majority of Christians in the Tea Party and we're in agreement.

 

[Equation]

Historically speaking, Xinjiang and Tibet are quiet when China's strong and chaotic when it's weak. It's unusual for either to be troublesome when China's on the rise. The fact Xinjiang is becoming more and more violent, even with strong Chinese presence, is bad omen for the coming decades. It's in China's interest to cooperate and coordinate with Western nations, especially the United States, to combat Islamist groups in regions where China has interests and investments to protect; which means the entire world.

Why should China cooperate with the west when they are the ones holding several Uighur terrorists in their country instead of returning the perpetrators to China? Xinjiang will turn out fine, it's only the anti-China crowd would like to see it gets worse so that they can spew their mouth piece typical diatribes about how the Central government are weak and such. It's is in Western interests to start treating China as an equal or else they will continue to suffer more attacks (whether at home or abroad) from fundamentalists terrorists from ALL over the world all alone with a trouble economy. And that kind of mindset and attitude is NOT sustainable.