Possible Chinese involvement in fighting ISIS

[Equation]

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

And you don't think Christians are except from that? You can also say the vast majority of Muslims are NOT psychos as well.

 

[Equation]

Only if you employ the calculus with the primary view of deriving benefits on the back of efforts of others.

But it's the "other's" problems to begin with, not China's fault that ISIS are mostly concentrated on attacking the West. Would the West likes to help China deal with the Uighur disturbances?

 

[Blackstone]

And you don't think Christians are except from that? You can also say the vast majority of Muslims are NOT psychos as well.

I did say "ISIS women," didn't I? Never mind, Equation. This conversation is closed.

 

[Equation]

I did say "ISIS women," didn't I? Never mind, Equation. This conversation is closed.

You don't think Lynndie England (US Army reservists) abusive acts in Abu Ghraib prisoners are prime examples of that?

 

[delft]

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.

It is enough not to incite or recrute people to become terrorists. Many terrorist troubles are the result of US training people and then finding they turn against them with as most prominent example Afghanistan. But the Free Syrian Army, now virtually defunct, was trained and equiped by US and its friends before its personnel transferred its allegiance to IS.

 

[plawolf]

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.

Well, context is everything.

If the sole military and economic superpower was a Muslim nation, I dare say if ordinary Muslim citizens were outraged enough by something, they would get their national military to do their bombing for them with planes and cruise missiles rather than strap on a suicide vest themselves.

OTOH, I doubt many 'red blooded Americans' will be preaching peace and understanding if there was a foreign occupation army on their land, having arbitrary carved up the US into various new nation states and uprooted millions of Americans to make a homeland for a foreign people at the heart of the former US.

 

[Doombreed]

OTOH, I doubt many 'red blooded Americans' will be preaching peace and understanding if there was a foreign occupation army on their land, having arbitrary carved up the US into various new nation states and uprooted millions of Americans to make a homeland for a foreign people at the heart of the former US.

Such understanding. Wonder if you would apply the same analogy to the Uighurs?

 

[Blackstone]

Such understanding. Wonder if you would apply the same analogy to the Uighurs?

To be fair, Uyghurs are part of "East Turkish" ethnic minority and not racially Han. They've always considered Han Chinese invaders and occupiers of their land. Don't get me wrong, I believe Xinjiang is part of China and has been for centuries, but let's have no delusions about how the local minorities in Xinjiang feel about being conquered and occupied.

Before any yahoos get on another moral equivalency tirade, lots of Native Americans, a.k.a., "American Indians" feel likewise about their conditions too. But, guess what? Just like Xijiang peoples, they're not getting Alaska, Hawaii, or any of the lower 48 back either. It is what it is.

 

[plawolf]

Such understanding. Wonder if you would apply the same analogy to the Uighurs?

Yes, in fact I do. I think the actual terrorists should be liquidated without mercy, but do not consider all Uighurs or Muslims terrorists just because of a few fringe lunatics and fanatics.

Fortunately that is a position shared by China's rulers, who are going out of their way to educate the general public about the difference and stamps down hard on false rumors and irresponsible reporting. The west calls that censorship, I call it being responsible.

There will always be a few twisted and perverted people who enjoy killing and hurting others. All too often such individuals are drawn to fanatical religion as it gives them some measure of a feeling of redemption and justification - "I was made this way by God to smite his foes and the unbelievers" and other similar BS.

But such individuals are always rare in the extreme, so that is why the planners and organisers of terror tries to exploit racial and sectarian differences to drag the majority into their camp. Iraq and Syria are vivid examples.

This is a view I hope to impress upon our American friends, which is the rational for my last few posts - to illustrate that it is the circumstances people find themselves in that turns otherwise reasonable and normal men and women into fanatical mass murderers.

As such, you would be falling into a trap and helping to radicalise otherwise normal people and force them into the arms of the extremists if you fall into the temptation of buying into the view that Islam and Muslims at large are the problem.

 

[Brumby]

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.

If China is looking for an excuse not to participate then there are plenty of reasons that can be offered. After all it is a coalition of the willing and able. It boils down to what role China wants to play on the world stage when issues align with its own interest and how it would be perceived by others - either as a free loader or a country stepping up and shouldering a share of the problem in line with its status.

We don't need another anti China or media conspiracy default defence every time a discussion comes up. Don't you get tired of using the same lines?