Al-Qaida calls for holy war against china

[Martian]

It's bad enough that the United States invades countries at its discretion, without the authorization of the UN. There are already plenty of Iraqi and Afghani civilians dying every week from US or NATO collateral damage. It would be a shame if Al-Qaida succeeded in radicalizing the Chinese government. Nothing would be worse than Chinese hawks joining their Neocon brethren and going around invading countries to kill terrorists and causing collateral damage.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

why would it be bad??

 

[mattster]

mattster, it seems that you're in favor of Al-Qaida attacks on China. You believe that there will be no response. I do not agree with you. I believe that Chinese hawks will retaliate and that is something that I would rather not see.

My point is that China is not yet a liberal democracy; though I think it is slowly moving in that direction. It is my view that it would be a very bad idea to conduct significant terrorist strikes on authoritarian China. My intuition is that the Chinese response will be worse than the American one.

martian...You keep saying that....but WHO are they going to retaliate against ???

99 % of all major terrorists attacks start out with their planning and training in either Pakistan proper or the Af/Pak border and the remaining 1% probably come from places like the Gulf states, Saudi, etc.

So who are they going to Nuke Afghanistan with thousands of US troops ??
Do you really believe that China is ready to tangle with the US - thats a no contest right now.

Are they really going to launch Air-strikes inside Pak.....no chance, they most they can do is put pressure on the ISI.

Bottom line is that they can do **** SQUAT - they are more exposed then we are because we at least hate the Pakistanis, so we can at least launch covert attacks against them.

But the Chinese are in bed with these guys for 50 years. If the ISI loses control of these guys, and they attack China - China is f*cked !!

The US will only be too happy if the AfPak Jihadis turn their full attention towards China - It will relieve a lot of pressure and they are not going to loose any sleep over it.

 

[Martian]

Let's use logic to determine who's going to pay for terrorist strikes in China. In the US, muslim terrorists originate from the minority muslim communities located in US towns and cities. From what I've read, the FBI is monitoring mosques and young muslims throughout the United States. Due to pervasive intelligence activities, Homeland Security has prevented another terrorist attack in the United States for eight years, since 9/11/01.

A terrorist attack in China will also originate from one of its muslim communities. After a successful terrorist attack, the blame will fall on the muslim community for harboring and supporting the evil terrorists. The Chinese people and the Chinese government will lay the full blame on all muslims in China. In retaliation, the Chinese government will do whatever it feels like to those muslims. The Chinese response will probably be harsher than the Israeli response. Israel has a free press. The Chinese government has total control and does not have to worry about a free press. The big losers will be Chinese muslims or Uighurs.

With regards to Afghanistan, there have already been trial balloons in the press about NATO suggesting that China contribute 10,000 troops for its own sector. The Chinese have declined. If there are significant terrorist strikes in China, the Chinese government may change its mind and contribute tens of thousands of troops to the Global War On Terror. If you add more troops to the GWOT, there will be more collateral damage. It would be a bad day for civilians.

 

[johnee]

As Mattster has pointed out, China has indirectly supported these terrorists for a long time. So, I am not sure how trustworthy this 'call of Al Queda against China' is. It could just be a bogey


EDIT:
Having said that, if Al Queda is honestly wanting to go after China now, then it is bad news for China. Firstly, all that Al Queda has to do is use some disgruntled group of Uligars to mount a dramatic and violent attack on of the cities of China. China would then be under pressure to retaliate, at the same time it wont be able to retaliate on the sources of jihad. Because
#1) They have themselves nurtured them and helped Pakistan nurture them.
#2) They are not present in Afghanistan, and NATO will not allow them in Afghanistan(atleast not right now).

That will leave China only one option: To retaliate against Ulighurs. China may or may not do it. And either way, it will help the terrorists' agenda.
If China does not do anything but to bolster its defences, then the terrorists will be emboldened and will plan more audacious attacks. For Eg: India knows there are talibani fighters trying to enter India, yet India does nothing except tighten the defences, India does not punish the talibani fighters or their instigaters and hence the terrorists get emboldened.

If China reacts and bites the bait, by going after Ulighurs, then more young Ulighurs would sympathise with terrorists and Al Queda. This will again prove counter-productive. Though in the long run, this approach may work better but it would be bloody and costly.

Also, if an attack happens in China, then China will have concentrate on terrorists, and use its resources to strengthen its defences against them and fight them. Both are taxing on economy. China does not have this problem compared to nations like US, UK or India. Also a big attack, can scare of future investors.

Once US was attacked on 9/11, it triggered a series of events which have leeched the US' economy. This could also happen with China.


But one significant advantage that China enjoys, that no other country has is that, Pakistan is totally under the grip of Chinese. Even US cant effect the kind of emotion, that China can. So China will use their greater power within Pakistan to neutralize the terrorist ambitions towards China by either goading the Islamabad to go after those groups that are against China, or by directly dealing with terrorists and arriving at a settlement(political or financial) or directly entering Pakistan with its troops after due 'permission' from Islamabad. This is an advantage that US has not had in its War On Terror. US never had a sincere Pakistan by its side. In the final analysis, that could be very critical element. Pakistan has from the begining of WOT, has only been begging for aid and more aid without any tangible action on ground. The things may be different if China was in the position of US.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

If you add more troops to the GWOT, there will be more collateral damage. It would be a bad day for civilians.

Are Chinese soldiers that unprofessional that they would not be able to distinguish terrorists from civilians ?? and just go a wild mindless rampage?

 

[Martian]

"Though in the long run, this approach may work better but it would be bloody and costly."

This is what worries me. If you radicalize the Chinese government and make them paranoid, they will lash out and it's going to get bloody.

"Are Chinese soldiers that unprofessional that they would not be able to distinguish terrorists from civilians ?? and just go a wild mindless rampage?"

Terrorists use civilians as shields. Civilians die in the crossfire. Airstrikes almost always cause collateral damage. It's unavoidable.

I couldn't believe that Al-Qaida was stupid enough to stage the 9/11 attack. Since 9/11, has the US caved in to a single Al-Qaida demand? The only thing that 9/11 accomplished was to let loose the "dogs of war" with the US military rampaging through the Middle East.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Chinese are not going to be a world policeman like USA is trying to be, no matter how many terror strikes happen.

 

[Martian]

China is already the largest contributor to international peacekeeping among the P5. She has the capability, but not the willingness (due to the ideology of non-interference) to be a policeman without UN authorization.

"By June 2006 China was already the largest contributor of peacekeepers to UN mission among the UNSC P5." See (Page 22 of 33) - Balance vs. Harmony: Interpreting China's Illiberal Internationalism under Hu Jintao authored by Paltiel, Jeremy.

 

[ppgj]

After 9/11, it was scary here in the United States. It seemed like everybody turned anti-Islamic overnight. The 24-hour news channels kept replaying the airplane crashes into the Twin Towers. The war drums started beating on television and in the editorial columns of newspapers. 9/11 gave the neocons the power to send American troops into Afghanistan and Iraq.

precisely the point. they want to polarise the opinion both within and without of the country they target. they won't succeed much in india 'cos india itself has 2nd biggest muslim population in the world that acts as a catalyst. china or anybody else does not have that luxury.

Do we really want to see terrorist strikes in China and let the hardliners gain the upper hand against the moderates on the Politburo? Are the Uighurs sure that they're ready when the Chinese hardliners come for them?

alqaeda or any terror group in pakistan does not go by what uighurs think or want. they follow their own rules. hence it does not matter to them how chinese react. also by committing spectacular kamikaze bombings and mass killing, they can inflict massive damage and bleed non stop. no amount of reprisals can solve this. it will only bring attention and complicate the matters for china. they have to seriously think about the threat. i think it is payback time.

 

[johnee]

precisely the point. they want to polarise the opinion both within and without of the country they target. they won't succeed much in india 'cos india itself has 2nd biggest muslim population in the world that acts as a catalyst. china or anybody else does not have that luxury.

No, mate. It is not a luxury. If US, UK or China(or any other non-muslim country for that matter) when faced with Islamic Terror will do the obvious and simple thing: They will monitor their muslim population and it will help that nation from falling prey to terrorist's designs. If push comes to shove, these nations will come down hard on their muslim population and save their nations. India does not have this luxury due to two reasons:
#1)large muslim population
#2)'secular' politics practised by most regional parties, a national party, most media houses, 'intellectuals', and NGOs funded by money flowing from foreign countries.

So, US, China and other non-muslim countries have a luxury that if the question of survival comes, then they will not hesitate to shun their muslim population. India does not have that luxury. If the question of survival comes in India, Indian politics will make sure that India goes down with its 'secular' politics.

 

[Martian]

If Al-Qaida wants to launch terrorist attacks on a country, there's nothing that will stop a mad dog. However, oftentimes, the muslim community are aware of impending attacks from Al-Qaida attempts to recruit in mosques and to buy the bomb supplies from muslims.

In the end, I believe the muslim community will have to stand up and put an end to this. Otherwise, it will be muslims that suffer the most from retaliatory repression, restrictions on freedom of movement, and exclusion from jobs.

The modern world consists of a community of nations with a wide diversity of ethnicities. It is sad that muslims have become nihilists and engage in "kamikaze bombings and mass killings." As johnee said, muslims are being shunned in countries and they're paying a heavy social and economic price.

 

[mattster]

First of all if Al-Quida decides to attack China in a big way...they are not going to use Uighurs, or even exiled Uighurs or other Chinese Muslims outside China.

The reason is simple, China watches its Muslim population like a hawk and they have spies everywhere in their Muslim and ethnic/Tibetan populations. As for exiled Uighurs they are watched even more than the locals.

Al-Queda is simply not that dumb. If they launch a mass attack on China, it will be thru non-Chinese actors who are infiltrated thru borders or those that come in legally on student visas, or even business people.

its going to be very hard to recruit Uighurs in China for attacks because of all the logistic issues in training them, and the constant monitoring.

They will use foreigners who are beyond suspicion. They are not dummies.

 

[Martian]

"Al-Queda is simply not that dumb. If they launch a mass attack on China, it will be thru non-Chinese actors who are infiltrated thru borders or those that come in legally on student visas, or even business people."

After a successful attack, China will ban foreign muslim students and business people. No matter how you look at it, muslims are the losers.

 

[ppgj]

I'm suggesting that it is folly. Pinpricks don't work. If Al-Qaida wants to advance Islamic interests, it has to find another way.

unfortunately they do. you live in constant fear which way the next one comes!!

Let's look at one prominent example. The Palestinians bombed the Israelis relentlessly. Did that work? Did the Israelis push back by building a wall and excluding Palestinians from jobs inside Israel? What is the Palestinian unemployment rate? Did the bombing stop? Who suffered the most in the end, the Israelis or Palestinians? Did the Israelis give up one inch of land? Or did the bombings harden the resolve of the Israelis to renege on the Oslo accords and to annex West Bank land in retaliation for the bombings?

for terrorists, it does not matter 'cos they are in there to die!! so the question is not how much they suffer, rather how much damage they inflict.

Terrorism has proven itself to be a failure. Al-Qaida needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new strategy.

i don't know how you define that. by the same token how do you define success particularly in the light of what USA has achieved post 9/11?

It is a poor strategy to use force against the Chinese.

the fact is terror groups do not think like nation states.

I'm worried that if the Uighurs do enough damage, China will show them her iron fist and Uighur civilians, like Palestinians, will regret antagonizing China and pay the price. Do the Uighurs really want to live under martial law (i.e. break curfew and you get shot)? Poking the Bear, see Georgia, or poking the Dragon in the eye is not a good strategy. Does Al-Qaida really want to push China into sending 100,000 or 200,000 thousand troops into Iraq and Afghanistan to help the US?

no amount of troops can eliminate this. only if the minds of the terror groups are moulded in the right path, it can. but then who can do that?

Did Al-Qaida advance Islamic interests by poking the Eagle in the eye? How many Islamic people have died in Iraq and Afghanistan from US bombs? Were the World Trade Centers really worth the lives of all those Iraqis and Afghanis?

the point is one never gets precise intel about them. they keep shifting and merging with local population. in scare, the troops tend to to be safe apart from desperation and revenge. that explains your point. it is never ending cycle.

 

[johnee]

"Al-Queda is simply not that dumb. If they launch a mass attack on China, it will be thru non-Chinese actors who are infiltrated thru borders or those that come in legally on student visas, or even business people."

After a successful attack, China will ban foreign muslim students and business people. No matter how you look at it, muslims are the losers.

If China does that, then Al Queda will use it as an evidence of China's anti-muslim stance and incite hatred against China. This will be used as a recruiting matra. Most of the time, muslims are insensitive to the attacks on non-muslims by the muslims who wage 'jihad'. They sit up and protest only when muslims' face the ire after a successful attack by the terrorists. This is well understood by Al Queda and it utilizes this phenomenon or phsycology very well.

 

[Martian]

"it is never ending cycle."

I don't agree. Since 9/11, there has not been another terrorist attack on the United States. The reason is that muslims are treated with suspicion and under surveillance. Al-Qaida's terrorist attacks on 9/11 did not create "constant fear." It created enormous anger.

It is that tremendous American anger that is scary. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because they thought it would create fear. The unleashed American anger ended with two nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Americans become truly angry again, we could easily nuke the hometowns in the MidEast of every single terrorist. Arabs understand revenge right?

"If China does that, then Al Queda will use it as an evidence of China's anti-muslim stance and incite hatred against China."

China wouldn't care. Security trumps public image. After all, it's muslim terrorists that are killing Chinese civilians. It is also true that the US doesn't care either. It is difficult for a muslim to enter the United States. Just ask one of the famous Indian actors. Even a muslim sounding name puts you under suspicion.

 

[ppgj]

No, mate. It is not a luxury.

when i say luxury, it means muslims in india themselves will stand up. everyone wants a normal life besides indian muslims see thro' the gameplan of the terrorists which is to polarise. so inspite of some killings they wont make much headway.

If US, UK or China(or any other non-muslim country for that matter) when faced with Islamic Terror will do the obvious and simple thing: They will monitor their muslim population and it will help that nation from falling prey to terrorist's designs. If push comes to shove, these nations will come down hard on their muslim population and save their nations. India does not have this luxury due to two reasons:
#1)large muslim population
#2)'secular' politics practised by most regional parties, a national party, most media houses, 'intellectuals', and NGOs funded by money flowing from foreign countries.

no amount of monitoring can check this. they have stuck and will continue to strike in uk.

So, US, China and other non-muslim countries have a luxury that if the question of survival comes, then they will not hesitate to shun their muslim population. India does not have that luxury.

not easy in modern times. you are forgetting a big muslim world. turkey has already raised its voice.

 

[ppgj]

I don't agree. Since 9/11, there has not been another terrorist attack on the United States. The reason is that muslims are treated with suspicion and under surveillance. Al-Qaida's terrorist attacks on 9/11 did not create "constant fear." It created enormous anger.

just 'cos it has not happened so far does not mean it can't happen in future.

It is that tremendous American anger that is scary. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because they thought it would create fear. The unleashed American anger ended with two nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Americans become truly angry again, we could easily nuke the hometowns in the MidEast of every single terrorist. Arabs understand revenge right?

the point is one can't fight with bombs something that has to be fought with minds.

China wouldn't care.

it does not matter. they will scare scare chinese to the extent they can drive away the han chinese from xinjiang and then build on it by polarising the world.

 

[Martian]

It just seems to me that Al-Qaida is failing to scare anybody; Americans (9/11) or Russians (Chechnya) or Spaniards (train attack) or Chinese. Al-Qaida is succeeding in engendering hatred by non-muslims for muslims. Even the French are becoming anti-muslim:

"The French National Assembly announced Tuesday the creation of an inquiry into whether women in France should be allowed to wear the burka, one day after President Nicolas Sarkozy controversially told lawmakers that the traditional Muslim garment was "not welcome" in France." See French parliament to consider burka ban - CNN.com

Few people are talking about how scared we are of Al-Qaida or muslims. Like the French, most countries are thinking of ways to make life more unpleasant for muslims.

You tell me. Is Al-Qaida succeeding? Are the French afraid to impose a burqa ban? Or do you think Al-Qaida's terrorism is causing French blowback in proposing a burqa ban?