http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/01/us-china-attack-idUSBREA200OQ20140301
When has China not been heavy handed?
I wonder if there is a single country on this planet where Muslims are not killing civilians who are simply going about their daily life?
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
I wonder if there is a single country on this planet where Muslims are not killing civilians who are simply going about their daily life? [/quote]
Greenland?
[quote]WN76 wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
I wonder if there is a single country on this planet where Muslims are not killing civilians who are simply going about their daily life? [/quote]
Greenland?[/quote]
I think you are right. I must look up their immigration policy.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
I wonder if there is a single country on this planet where Muslims are not killing civilians who are simply going about their daily life? [/quote]
The attacks were believed to have been carried out by Xinjiang separatist forces. You fail to understand the difference between religious terrorism and that conducted to bring about separatist ambitions.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
The attacks were believed to have been carried out by Xinjiang separatist forces. [/quote]
It’s believed there were 10 attackers, two of them being women. It’s now 33 dead, 143 wounded.
[quote]WN76 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
The attacks were believed to have been carried out by Xinjiang separatist forces. [/quote]
It’s believed there were 10 attackers, two of them being women. It’s now 33 dead, 143 wounded.
[/quote]
One article says the police shot and killed 4 of the attackers, so 29 is the victim total.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]WN76 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
The attacks were believed to have been carried out by Xinjiang separatist forces. [/quote]
It’s believed there were 10 attackers, two of them being women. It’s now 33 dead, 143 wounded.
[/quote]
One article says the police shot and killed 4 of the attackers, so 29 is the victim total.[/quote]
I hate it when they include the perpetrators with the victims.
[quote]WN76 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]WN76 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
The attacks were believed to have been carried out by Xinjiang separatist forces. [/quote]
It’s believed there were 10 attackers, two of them being women. It’s now 33 dead, 143 wounded.
[/quote]
One article says the police shot and killed 4 of the attackers, so 29 is the victim total.[/quote]
I hate it when they include the perpetrators with the victims. [/quote]
Well the news article with the highest count always looks like the most up to date
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
I wonder if there is a single country on this planet where Muslims are not killing civilians who are simply going about their daily life? [/quote]
The attacks were believed to have been carried out by Xinjiang separatist forces. You fail to understand the difference between religious terrorism and that conducted to bring about separatist ambitions. [/quote]
These separatists are Muslims. They want a separate Muslim state. This attack cannot be separated from their Islamic beliefs. You apparently fail to understand that.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
I wonder if there is a single country on this planet where Muslims are not killing civilians who are simply going about their daily life? [/quote]
The attacks were believed to have been carried out by Xinjiang separatist forces. You fail to understand the difference between religious terrorism and that conducted to bring about separatist ambitions. [/quote]
These separatists are Muslims. They want a separate Muslim state. This attack cannot be separated from their Islamic beliefs. You apparently fail to understand that.
[/quote]
Hey, can’t let the facts get in the way of some good ol’ fashioned pomposity.[/quote]
Coming from the two who believe that Iran would spend billions on obtaining weapons grade radioactive materials to only waste it in an ineffective “dirty bomb.” Correlation does not imply causation. The separatists in Xinjiang cannot be equated to a civillian-centric terrorist group which is predominated motivated by religious convictions, such as Al-Qaida. Historically speaking, separatists movements of varying ideologies have had little choice but to engage in guerrilla warfare and terrorist tactics because of the asymmetrical nature of their military capabilities vis a vis the state. It has much less to do with the possible Muslim identity of the attackers than lack of wherewithal. I wouldn’t expect either of you to consider anything that didn’t serve to confirm your preconceived beliefs though.
Nothing to do with Al Qaeda, except that… during the Taliban era, ETIM (East Turkestan Islamic Movement) had its headquarters in Kabul and worked with Bin Laden and other waziri based islamist organizations on a daily basis.
Nothing to do with Al Qaeda, except that one of their leader and founder, Mahsum, was killed by the Pakistani army during the invasion of Afghanistan in 2003… in an Al Qaeda hideout.
Nothing to do with Al Qaeda, except that ETIM attacked an US embassy in Kyrgyzistan in 2006, which is obviously consistent with a purely separatist agenda.
Nothing to do with islamist terrorism, except they planned a terror attack against the 2008 Summer Olympics.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
I wonder if there is a single country on this planet where Muslims are not killing civilians who are simply going about their daily life? [/quote]
The attacks were believed to have been carried out by Xinjiang separatist forces. You fail to understand the difference between religious terrorism and that conducted to bring about separatist ambitions. [/quote]
These separatists are Muslims. They want a separate Muslim state. This attack cannot be separated from their Islamic beliefs. You apparently fail to understand that.
[/quote]
Hey, can’t let the facts get in the way of some good ol’ fashioned pomposity.[/quote]
Coming from the two who believe that Iran would spend billions on obtaining weapons grade radioactive materials to only waste it in an ineffective “dirty bomb.” Correlation does not imply causation. The separatists in Xinjiang cannot be equated to a civillian-centric terrorist group which is predominated motivated by religious convictions, such as Al-Qaida. Historically speaking, separatists movements of varying ideologies have had little choice but to engage in guerrilla warfare and terrorist tactics because of the asymmetrical nature of their military capabilities vis a vis the state. It has much less to do with the possible Muslim identity of the attackers than lack of wherewithal. I wouldn’t expect either of you to consider anything that didn’t serve to confirm your preconceived beliefs though.[/quote]
Funny how I don’t see Chinese Christians slaughtering civilians so they can have their own state in China. Despite the fact the Chinese government treats them just as poorly as the rest of its citizens. The idea that the religious beliefs of these wackos have nothing to do with their decision to kill civilians is preposterous.
Would a “dirty” bomb be just as ineffective as strapping low yield bombs to mentally retarded people in order to blow themselves and innocent civilians up? Saudi Arabia has spent billions to fund just those kinds of acts.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Nothing to do with Al Qaeda, except that… during the Taliban era, ETIM (East Turkestan Islamic Movement) had its headquarters in Kabul and worked with Bin Laden and other waziri based islamist organizations on a daily basis.
Nothing to do with Al Qaeda, except that one of their leader and founder, Mahsum, was killed by the Pakistani army during the invasion of Afghanistan in 2003… in an Al Qaeda hideout.
Nothing to do with Al Qaeda, except that ETIM attacked an US embassy in Kyrgyzistan in 2006, which is obviously consistent with a purely separatist agenda.
Nothing to do with islamist terrorism, except they planned a terror attack against the 2008 Summer Olympics.
[/quote]
You are mistaken. The group responsible for the attack in China is allegedly the East Turkestan INDEPENDENCE Movement, not the East Turkestan ISLAMIC Movement. Conflating the two is a common but critical error.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Nothing to do with Al Qaeda, except that… during the Taliban era, ETIM (East Turkestan Islamic Movement) had its headquarters in Kabul and worked with Bin Laden and other waziri based islamist organizations on a daily basis.
Nothing to do with Al Qaeda, except that one of their leader and founder, Mahsum, was killed by the Pakistani army during the invasion of Afghanistan in 2003… in an Al Qaeda hideout.
Nothing to do with Al Qaeda, except that ETIM attacked an US embassy in Kyrgyzistan in 2006, which is obviously consistent with a purely separatist agenda.
Nothing to do with islamist terrorism, except they planned a terror attack against the 2008 Summer Olympics.
[/quote]
You are mistaken. The group responsible for the attack in China is allegedly the East Turkestan INDEPENDENCE Movement, not the East Turkestan ISLAMIC Movement. Conflating the two is a common but critical error.[/quote]
Why can’t these assholes be more creative with their names?
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
I wonder if there is a single country on this planet where Muslims are not killing civilians who are simply going about their daily life? [/quote]
The attacks were believed to have been carried out by Xinjiang separatist forces. You fail to understand the difference between religious terrorism and that conducted to bring about separatist ambitions. [/quote]
These separatists are Muslims. They want a separate Muslim state. This attack cannot be separated from their Islamic beliefs. You apparently fail to understand that.
[/quote]
Hey, can’t let the facts get in the way of some good ol’ fashioned pomposity.[/quote]
Coming from the two who believe that Iran would spend billions on obtaining weapons grade radioactive materials to only waste it in an ineffective “dirty bomb.” Correlation does not imply causation. The separatists in Xinjiang cannot be equated to a civillian-centric terrorist group which is predominated motivated by religious convictions, such as Al-Qaida. Historically speaking, separatists movements of varying ideologies have had little choice but to engage in guerrilla warfare and terrorist tactics because of the asymmetrical nature of their military capabilities vis a vis the state. It has much less to do with the possible Muslim identity of the attackers than lack of wherewithal. I wouldn’t expect either of you to consider anything that didn’t serve to confirm your preconceived beliefs though.[/quote]
Funny how I don’t see Chinese Christians slaughtering civilians so they can have their own state in China. Despite the fact the Chinese government treats them just as poorly as the rest of its citizens. The idea that the religious beliefs of these wackos have nothing to do with their decision to kill civilians is preposterous.
Would a “dirty” bomb be just as ineffective as strapping low yield bombs to mentally retarded people in order to blow themselves and innocent civilians up? Saudi Arabia has spent billions to fund just those kinds of acts.
[/quote]
You’re showing your ignorance of Chinese history here. This conflict dates back to the 19th century. They are not ethnic Han Chinese, but rather various peoples of Turkic identity. At the heart of this conflict is Turkic nationalism. This Turkic nationalist ideology has cause hostilities between differing Muslim ethnic groups at various times in Chinese history. Along with Han Chinese, Turkic nationalists attempted to expel Chinese Muslims from Xinjiang.
Not only is this inaccurate, but it is a non-sequidur.