[quote]pushharder wrote:
Bissy, I am glad you’re here on PWI. You make me smile.[/quote]
Yeah, I’m not much of a fan of ideological fundamentalism. I’ll try to contribute to the confirmation bias and ahistorical circle jerk more often.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
When has China not been heavy handed?[/quote]
Almost always.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[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. [/quote]
You’re trying to obfuscate the original point I made. It doesn’t matter how long the Turkic’s have wanted their own state. The fact is, most mass killings of civilians in the last 30 years has been perpetrated by Muslims. If the Turkic’s were Buddhist or Confucians or Christians, it’s highly unlikely innocent civilians would have been pointlessly slaughtered.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
You’re trying to obfuscate the original point I made. It doesn’t matter how long the Turkic’s have wanted their own state. The fact is, most mass killings of civilians in the last 30 years has been perpetrated by Muslims. If the Turkic’s were Buddhist or Confucians or Christians, it’s highly unlikely innocent civilians would have been pointlessly slaughtered.
[/quote]
He’s trying to say that this is fundamentally an issue of nationalism.
Hence the reason he brought up the point of the Turkish nationalists also expelling Chinese Muslims.
And could please people cut down on the incessant quoting? Just quote the relevant parts. No need to make a giant string of quotes, only to respond to the latest part of it.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
You’re trying to obfuscate the original point I made. It doesn’t matter how long the Turkic’s have wanted their own state. The fact is, most mass killings of civilians in the last 30 years has been perpetrated by Muslims. If the Turkic’s were Buddhist or Confucians or Christians, it’s highly unlikely innocent civilians would have been pointlessly slaughtered.
[/quote]
He’s trying to say that this is fundamentally an issue of nationalism.
Hence the reason he brought up the point of the Turkish nationalists also expelling Chinese Muslims.
And could please people cut down on the incessant quoting? Just quote the relevant parts. No need to make a giant string of quotes, only to respond to the latest part of it.[/quote]
It certainly seems easy to use Islamic doctrine to condone and motivate these attacks. There’s no denying that, in my opinion. I do have a very limited understanding of Islam.
However, these types of attacks did not just start occuring. Prior to the thirty year period mentioned these ‘political/ideoligical’ murders were defended using communist doctrine.
I think a power void was created by the collapse of the USSR. This void is being filled by Islamists power brokers.
He’s trying to say their religion had nothing to do with the act of cutting and hacking civilians to death. He’s wrong.
SHit… Good thing China banned guns… amirite?
No mass killings.
Yeah, I get that. I don’t think religion is the only motivation behind what appears to be a global effort at antigovernment violence.
Islam is a religion and a culture simultaneously, though. So maybe an argument could be made that religion IS the motivating factor. Like I stated I don’t have agreat understanding of Islam. What I do know is the rest of the muslim community, which would have a greater understanding of Islam, doesn’t condemn these acts. I like to believe, perhaps naively so, that if christian sects committed such outrageous acts and tried to use thier religion as a shield other christians would call bullshit on that. I don’t understand why that doesn’t happen. Maybe it does and American news outlets don’t report it.
NPR said these people are locked out of employment ?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
NPR said these people are locked out of employment ?[/quote]
They are at the bottom of the totem pole in China’s Hukou system, which severely limits what occupations they can hold and where they can live.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
He’s trying to say their religion had nothing to do with the act of cutting and hacking civilians to death. He’s wrong. [/quote]
Where did I say that, exactly? You were clearly ignorant of the conflict in Xinjiang, the ETIM, and the difference between separatists and religious terrorism before I elucidated my position, so what makes you feel that you’re correct when you’ve presented zero evidence of anything beyond your own bigotry? You’re content with your own confirmation bias. “Muslims are bad!” You should examine the death tolls brought about by Christians during European imperialism and compare it to religious terrorism as a whole. People possess multiple identities. These attackers were most likely Turkic peoples by ethnicity, and Muslim by religious practice. The attackers could just as easily had been Christians had the proliferation of the Abrahamic faiths taken a different direction in the region. The simplistic interpretation that “they did it because they’re Muslims!” has little explanatory power, and only serves to demonstrate your own ignorance and ideological fundamentalism.