When it’s a story about Israel foiling a terrorist plot, the “news” stories all begin with “Israel claims to have foiled a plot…”

When the story is about murderous, commie dictators foiling a plot, it’s written as fact.

In a just world, it would be exactly the opposite. The first thing I think when Russia or China talk about nabbing terrorists is, “What did those people do to tick off their commie overlords?”

Maybe someone tried to flush their little “Red Book” or a picture of Chairman Mao and the words inflammatory and inflammable got confused.

p40tiger on March 9, 2008 at 9:21 PM

I agree. Is there any reason to oppose their independence, besides the fact that they’re Muslim? (This is not a reason for me.) I thought we conservatives were for local rule, decentralization and self-determination.

KGB on March 9, 2008 at 2:20 PM

Exactly.

Pax americana on March 9, 2008 at 3:03 PM

I also agree with this interpretation. However, having been to Xinjiang, and been among the Uighers, I can tell you that these are not Osama’s henchmen. They are Muslim, yes, but they also would not generally be accepted in the radical circles. They mix customs. I saw them burning money to their ancestors (like the Han Chinese do). I don’t think Uncle Osama would look kindly on it. From what I saw of the Uighers, they are very hospitable, very resourceful people.

They are a people who want their freedom. They see the Han as invaders, and they want their country back. I think the US sort of sold them down the river in 2001. Before that time, we viewed them favorably, but after 9-11 we were looking for allies, and agreed with Beijing to declare the separatist movement “a terrorist organization.”

Are their Islamic Radicals there? Yes. They are growing in number as the people become more frustrated with the increasing number of Han, and the tighter restrictions from Beijing. But my point is that the Uighers in general are not of this ilk.

This incident is very sad to me because I think Beijing will have one of their common knee-jerk reactions and many good Uighers will suffer for it. If this really was an Islamic attack on Beijing, then I understand and tacitly support Beijing in their efforts to protect citizens, but I fear they will use this as an excuse for much more….

I’m remembering reading a brief little blurb right after 9/11 that China wouldn’t even allow anyone with an Arab name to book a rservation into their country, let alone trying to scan boarding crowds specifically for terrorists. I never saw anything else about that, so I don’t know if it’s true or not. I didn’t realize the Chinese had their own homegrown nutsoid fanatics to deal with.

So, it’s OK to joke about Islam blowing up airliners if they are Chinese?

BL@KBIRD on March 9, 2008 at 3:23 PM

If you’re Mark Steyn its not only okay but a kind of vindication (He who laughs last laughs loudest) to joke about the destruction of Britain.

Avi Green on March 9, 2008 at 4:19 PM

I disagree. An excess of male children means they have a whole army of “second sons” to send off to war if needs be. It worked for the Conquistadors.

Amen. Too many stiffs here, we can always use cheap laughs.

Anyone seen that exhibit of human cadavers called “Bodies”? That’s right, it’s from China………………

So, it’s OK to joke about Islam blowing up airliners if they are Chinese?

BL@KBIRD on March 9, 2008 at 3:23 PM

When the plots are thwarted, no one gets hurt and it involves blowing up toilets (or shoe-bombs), yes.

Canadian Infidel on March 9, 2008 at 4:30 PM

Make whatever rules you want for yourselves, but I’ll stick to laughing whenever I think something’s funny, and joking whenever I think someone will laugh with me.

So, it’s OK to joke about Islam blowing up airliners if they are Chinese?

BL@KBIRD on March 9, 2008 at 3:23 PM

When the plots are thwarted, no one gets hurt and it involves blowing up toilets (or shoe-bombs), yes.

“So far, China has acted to block Western efforts to fight radical Islamists, and certainly has run interference for their greatest state sponsor, Iran.”

No good deed, right………..?

Put an end to Chinese communism already.

Liberals still view the USA as a much more serious threat than the Islamists, hence their political agenda uses the realpolitik doctrine of the lesser of two evil.

BryanS on March 9, 2008 at 3:20 PM

Indeed I would agree with this interpretation. The psychology of the anti-American left is interesting, since it seems to be based on a kind of self-loathing psychosis. Many of these people derive a kind of mascochistic pleasure from denouncing their own culture and history: it relieves their feelings of guilt and poor self-image. Of course, it is a very dangerous kind of delusion, because by biting off the hand that feeds them we less able to protect ourselves from malign forces.

The Chinese probably will need some variety of a 911 attack to make them reassess their security priorities. But I wouldn’t bank on anything on that scale happening soon. The Islamists know that the USA is a much more courageous enemy, which is capable of defeating them ideologically as well as militarily. Furthermore, as Robert Spencer has so notably been demonstrating, there is a fourteen-hundred year history of fighting Christendom that they can draw upon, whereas Chinese interests have never much conflicted with Islam before now. It was their neighbors to the north – the Mongols – who came closest to destroying Islam in the 13th century.

Funny that we don’t hear much whining from liberals about the Chinese approach to Islamists!

The PRC still views the USA as a much more serious rival than the Islamists, hence their policy towards Iran uses the realpolitik doctrine of the lesser of two evils.

Pax americana on March 9, 2008 at 3:03 PM

Your argument explains a lot about Chinese behavior. Perhaps they need their own version of 911 to be shocked into action. I guess a corollary of your argument would be:

The Chinese and the Islamists are not much of a threat for the liberals. The liberals have all of the soft power of Europe, the American Left, NGOs, and the media around the world at their disposal. The liberals are pursuing in Iraq and the GWO the same policy as they did in Vietnam: swamp the population with news about American failures in order to sew despair about the chances of success.

Liberals still view the USA as a much more serious threat than the Islamists, hence their political agenda uses the realpolitik doctrine of the lesser of two evil.

THE CHOSEN ONE on March 9, 2008 at 2:43 PM

Whatever you say boss.

I don’t understand why China cannot see past it’s energy interests and understand coddling Iran et. al. is a more serious long term threat to their security/sovereignty.

BryanS on March 9, 2008 at 1:38 PM

The Uighar threat is not especially serious for the PRC. Communist China has the largest army in the world and a billion and a half people, most of whom are slaves to the state, as opposed to a few million peasant uighars. The Chinese are already pursuing the same policy as they did in Tibet: i.e. swamp the population of the province with Han Chinese and send the local troublemakers to the gulag. Funny that we don’t hear much whining from liberals about the Chinese approach to Islamists!

The PRC still views the USA as a much more serious rival than the Islamists, hence their policy towards Iran uses the realpolitik doctrine of the lesser of two evils.

Limerick on March 9, 2008 at 1:54 PM

Uhh What? F that, I want to see Fallen Gong stage some serious protests. This is a great opportunity for the people of China to speak their horrors to the world. Organ stealing, executions of religious leaders, environmental destruction, all need to be exposed to the world. The Olympics suck anyway.zzzzzzzzzzzz