Al-Qaida calls for holy war against china

[roma]

Reference Al-Qaida calls for holy war against China

In a video message, a senior Al-Qaida leader has urged Muslims to launch a holy war against Chinese "invaders" in response to the "massacre" of Uighurs in western China.

"The atheist criminals have long used the most despicable, cruel and brutal means against Muslims in Turkistan," said Abu Yayha al-Libi, who is sometimes identified as the commander in Afghanistan of the international terrorist network Al-Qaida.

"Thousands of Muslims were killed, and no one knows about them," he said in the 20-minute video, referring to Uighurs living in China.

Muslims with historical and linguistic ties to the Turkic peoples of Central Asia, Uighurs live in the western Chinese province of Xinjiang, which Islamists call East Turkistan.

According to the Washington-based terrorism monitoring group IntelCenter, the tape was made around late July or early August and released Tuesday by al-Sahab Media, Al-Qaida's media arm.

Nearly 200 people were killed and thousands injured or arrested in clashes between Uighurs and Han Chinese in Xinjiang in July.

In August, the Turkistan Islamic Party, a Uighur separatist group that claimed responsibility for a 2008 bombing in Shanghai, used similar language to call for attacks in response to the "massacre" of Uighurs in Xinjiang.

"There is no path to salvation or toward lifting oppression and injustice save by returning to religion," al-Libi said. Muslims "must sincerely prepare for jihad (holy war) and take up arms against the ruthless invaders".

"Consecutive Chinese governments have worked hard to sever every link between the wounded people of Turkistan and the Muslim nation," he said. "They are working to destroy them so that their numbers will decrease and their Islamic identity will be dissolved".

Al-Libi called for "a media campaign to tell the Muslim nation the truth about what is going on there and to expose Chinese colonialism".


my comments; my take is that this , if it develops would seriously affect prc's relations with the muslim world or actually the other way around viz how the islamic world views the prc. and it might spill into the common man in pakistan's view of prc, in the longer run

i guess it had to come sooner or later becuse the prc and the uygur were headed for a headon clash only in a matter of time, i'm a bit surprised it has come this early and with a relatively minor incident as what happened at the toy factory

prc is gonna find that the OIC ( organization of islamic countries) countries react a lot sooner and A lot more hot-headed that india. Mybe they (prc) would learn to be a bit more grateful to have india as their neighbour ?

 

[Martian]

Al-Qaida lacks common sense. Any military strategist knows that you're supposed to focus your resources on one war front. A two-front war is very bad; see German experience in WWI and WWII. A three-front war is hopeless.

Al-Qaida attacked the US on 9/11. In response, the US is fighting Al-Qaida in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US is enlisting Pakistani help to fight Al-Qaida/Islamic militants in Pakistan.

Al-Qaida or Islamic militants have been fighting Russia in Chechnya.

Now, Al-Qaida wants to start a new front against China?

This is absurd. Al-Qaida's resources are already stretched too thinly. Also, Al-Qaida wants to defeat the Chinese in their homeland? Anyone with common sense would realize that it is hopeless. How many divisions can Al-Qaida muster for a push against Xinjiang? How many troops can China muster? Why does Al-Qaida even bother dreaming about defeating the 2.3 million-man Chinese army that is equipped with weapons that were shown at the recent 60th anniversary parade?

If Al-Qaida had any intelligence, they would reach for achievable goals. First, Al-Qaida needs to take over a rich petro-state like Iraq or Saudi Arabia. Using petro-wealth, Al-Qaida can try to build an Islamic alliance with Egypt, Tukey, Iran, etc. Only after an united Islamic front has been assembled, Al-Qaida can seek to pressure the US, Russia, or China. But I still don't see a military victory. Islamic nations do not currently possess sufficient military technology or power to seriously challenge US, Russia, or China.

 

[Daredevil]

^^Al-Qaeda is not a military organization it is a militant organization. It doesn't need to win militarily, all it does is to terrorize people and create insecurity. It procures its resources both monetary and human, locally and in some cases from other islamic countries. Few suicide bombings in Beijing/Nanking, Shanghai etc is enough to create scare among chinese people and CCP party. They will try to use Uighurs as they can blend in with Chinese to create and cause terror.

 

[Martian]

A few suicide bombings in Beijing or Shanghai will lead to heavier security. It will only lead to a crackdown on Uighurs. But let's assume that security measures don't work, will the Chinese cave in? Personally, I doubt it. In the worst case scenario, if the Uighurs continue and succeed in a relentless bombing campaign, China could theoretically put all Uighurs in comfortable-housing concentration camps. Successful extremist attacks will lead to an extreme response. I don't see the Uighurs winning. For example, I do not see the Chechens winning.

 

[ahmedsid]

Daredevil is right, These guys are terrorists, Not a Normal Army fighting a War. You can never liken it to Germany!!!

Heightened Security, and Heavier Crackdown on Uighurs will only result in more Uighurs joining the Militancy!

 

[mehwish92]

A few suicide bombings in Beijing or Shanghai will lead to heavier security. It will only lead to a crackdown on Uighurs. But let's assume that security measures don't work, will the Chinese cave in? Personally, I doubt it. In the worst case scenario, if the Uighurs continue and succeed in a relentless bombing campaign, China could theoretically put all Uighurs in comfortable-housing concentration camps. Successful extremist attacks will lead to an extreme response. I don't see the Uighurs winning. For example, I do not see the Chechens winning.

As is the case in countries like India, USA, UK, etc.. these terror attacks only lead to more security measures, and more discrimination against Muslims in general. But terror attacks still happen, and sometimes this same discrimination which was caused by terrorism becomes a reason for terrorism. Ironic, isn't it?

 

[Martian]

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.

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?

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.

It is a poor strategy to use force against the Chinese. Whenever the US tries to use force to pressure China, the Chinese tend not to budge. That's why the US tries persuasion through mutual talks. For example, if the US says appreciate your currency by 20% right now, you know the Chinese will intentionally hold down their currency value. If the US can't strongarm China, does Al-Qaida really think killing a few Chinese civilians is going to work?

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?

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?

 

[Daredevil]

I'm suggesting that it is folly. Pinpricks don't work.

Pinpricks don't work when you look at long-term situation but in the short term it can wreak havoc. The whole geo-politics of middle-east and Asia changed because of 9/11 attacks by Al-qaeda. It lead to invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, it led to bleeding of US economy and military, it led to more radicalization of Taliban and more terrorism in Pakistan which has pushed it to the brink. In the long-term Al-qaeda will be ultimately defeated but in the short-term we have to bear the pain and you can already see the increased marginalization and screening of muslims in western countries.

If Al-Qaida wants to advance Islamic interests, it has to find another way.

Terrorists cannot carry forward ISlamic interests by terrorizing people. There is only one way for these terrorists, that is, highway to the hell.

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

Everybody suffers in the end because of terrorism. Nobody wins.

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.

Yes, terrorism has failed everywhere unless it is state-sponsored like Pakistan does with India using LeT.
Al-qaeda as an organization doesn't champion any great cause of normal muslims or Islam, so their strategy no matter what will fail in the end.

It is a poor strategy to use force against the Chinese. Whenever the US tries to use force to pressure China, the Chinese tend not to budge. That's why the US tries persuasion through mutual talks. For example, if the US says appreciate your currency by 20% right now, you know the Chinese will intentionally hold down their currency value. If the US can't strongarm China, does Al-Qaida really think killing a few Chinese civilians is going to work?

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?

In the absence of democracy in China, there is no way the Uighurs can raise their voice. They have been suppressed when they were peaceful and they will be suppressed even if they raise voice or perpetrate terrorist acts. So, nothing will change. But if Uighurs with backing of Al-qaeda would do suicide bomb attacks across major cities, it would cause insecurity and fear for a while but that will pass with time.

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?

Al-qaeda is a terrorist organization and it doesn't represent normal muslims. Al-qaeda just want to enforce extreme form of Islam, that is, wahhabism.

 

[Martian]

I don't know if people understand how serious it is to conduct a terrorist strike on a great power, whose people are accustomed to peace. After 9/11, there was a minority voice in the United States demanding nuclear retaliation on the Arab countries that were behind the 9/11 attack. The countries that were eligible for nuclear retaliation were Saudi Arabia (see Riyadh), Egypt (see Cairo), and Afghanistan.

If Al-Qaida had succeeded with a dirty bomb attack on New York or another major American city, I personally believed that the probability of American nuclear retaliation was 50%. There is a tipping point where the US public will demand nuclear retaliation and the president will obey the will of the American people.

Al-Qaida is crazy in calling for terrorist attacks on China. China is less restrained than the American liberal democracy. China's threshold to reach a tipping point is a lot lower. Terrorist attacks on China will result at most in a few thousand deaths; which is a small fraction of their yearly accidental car deaths. However, due to the shock from terrorism, the Chinese response can only end in tragedy for Uighurs.

As a liberal democrat, this is a nightmare scenario. Pushing the Chinese government into a corner where they must respond is insanity.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Martian a terrorist strike or instability may also prevent foreign investment from coming into China something that the terrorists may choose to happen even if they have to sacrifice hundreds or thousands of people,once the Chinese retaliate on the uighurs they are only setting the stage for the next cycle of terror and will have many volunteers victims from the first cycle chinese retaliation. Al Queda is not the only one angry at China;Turkey also called for action against China but not in the form of terror.

 

[Martian]

One of the partners of a famous US venture capital firm (called Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers) said that China does not need his money, because they already have plenty of their own money for domestic investment. Foreign investment is not as important as it used to be. Billions of dollars either way will not make an impact.

If the Uighurs force the Chinese to escalate, it's going to get ugly for the Uighurs. China will seal off Xinjiang and then take any steps that she feels necessary. Does anybody seriously want to see this scenario unfold?

 

[LETHALFORCE]

So the threat of Chinese retaliation will prevent this possibility? it didn't a couple of months ago, and with Uighur getting moral and possible financial support from outside sources it can happen again. The retaliation and playing the victim maybe the goal for the terrorists.

 

[Martian]

There's a tipping point. When the Chinese government decides that enough is enough, Uighur civilians will rue the day that they thought they can bomb China with impunity.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

They know they will not win but that may not be their goal, so far china has prevented this from becoming more internationalized once that happens it can fuel more mischief in the future.

 

[Martian]

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.

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?

 

[mattster]

I don't know if people understand how serious it is to conduct a terrorist strike on a great power, whose people are accustomed to peace. After 9/11, there was a minority voice in the United States demanding nuclear retaliation on the Arab countries that were behind the 9/11 attack. The countries that were eligible for nuclear retaliation were Saudi Arabia (see Riyadh), Egypt (see Cairo), and Afghanistan.

If Al-Qaida had succeeded with a dirty bomb attack on New York or another major American city, I personally believed that the probability of American nuclear retaliation was 50%. There is a tipping point where the US public will demand nuclear retaliation and the president will obey the will of the American people.

Al-Qaida is crazy in calling for terrorist attacks on China. China is less restrained than the American liberal democracy. China's threshold to reach a tipping point is a lot lower. Terrorist attacks on China will result at most in a few thousand deaths; which is a small fraction of their yearly accidental car deaths. However, due to the shock from terrorism, the Chinese response can only end in tragedy for Uighurs.

As a liberal democrat, this is a nightmare scenario. Pushing the Chinese government into a corner where they must respond is insanity.

You are right - a peaceful superpower will possibly react with a nuke attack against any group that uses a dirt bomb against it.

But what are the Chinese going to do against any mass casuality attack in one of their big grossly overcrowded cities that emanates from Pakistan/Afgahinstan based Al Queda ???

Are they going to nuke their only " all-weather, all-time anti-India ally " in Pakistan ???

Are they going to nuke the Afghan/Pak area and risk killing thousands of US forces ??

I'll tell you what they are going to do in case of a massive Al-Queda attack from Pakistan based jihadis - SQUAT !! Absolutely SQUAT !!

Other than threatening every Pakistan General and politician with the withdrawal of support, they cant do SQUAT !!

The most they can do is massacre their own Uighur Muslims in retaliation, and engender the hatred on every living Muslim on planet earth.

China is probably more impotent to Al-Queda based attacks than even US or India - because they have supported Pak's Jihadi policy for 40 years against India and even the US, and have tried to exterminate the Uighurs thru migration.

Who the hell is going to help the Chinese in their battle against these guys - Americans, Brits, Indians ???

 

[LETHALFORCE]

You are right Mattster, all previous uighur uprisings had their origins in pakistan to the point chinese and pakistani relations were strained when the next big one comes from pakistan what will china's reply be??

http://opinionasia.com/WritingontheWall

Writing on the Wall? Terrorism in Pakistan takes aim at China too


N V Subramanian
29 Dec 2008


It would be tragic if so-called strategic competition with India blinds China to the dangers from Pakistani terrorism. China would be courting disaster by permitting such Sino-Indian strategic competition to intrude into the bigger war against Pakistani terrorism. China and India encounter terrorism from nearly the same quarters in Pakistan, although the combination of groups and interests that carry out the attacks may vary. China is going down the same slippery slope of the United States in appeasing the Pakistani military in the hope to contain Pakistani terrorism. This is an insatiable beast that bites the feeding hand.

Terrorism against India and China are now epicentred in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan, where the US is campaigning against Al-Qaeda and Afghan and Pakistani Taliban terrorists with reluctant assistance from the Pakistani army. The 26-28 November Bombay terror attacks were designed to provoke an Indo-Pak face-off and halt the US campaign. Either the Pakistan army and ISI or the Al-Qaeda and the two Talibans (but chiefly the Pakistani Taliban) or them together designed the Bombay attack using the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) organisation.

The growing Uighur terrorism that China faces in Xinjiang province is also radiating out from FATA, more specifically, Mir Ali, in North Waziristan (according to counter-terrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna), headquarters of the smallish but deadly East Turkmenistan Islamic Movement (ETIM). ETIM is one of the oldest Uighur terrorist groups to survive tough and, what critics call, often "repressive" Chinese counter-terrorism measures in Xinjiang since at least the Nineties. Trouble for China arises from the fact that ETIM has passed under protection of the Islamic Jihad Union (IJU), which is wholly influenced by the Al-Qaeda, and IJU receives the overall umbrella cover of the Tareek-e-Taliban (TTP), a cooperative platform for Pakistani Taliban leaders lead by Beitullah Mahsud, one of the most wanted men in FATA today. In other words, China faces peak terrorist threats from ETIM, Al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban, and the last two employ ETIM to enable establishing a regional Central Asian caliphate that includes Xinjiang and with a second aim to undermine the rest of China.

The link in all this somewhere is the Pakistan military/ intelligence establishments, which have evolved jihad so considerably since the Eighties' "mujahideen" war against the (former) Soviet Union as to threaten and squeeze the more traditional pro-Chinese and pro-US sections in them. While the US could cut away from Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal (though it couldn't escape 9/ 11), China has faced the blowback of the so-called mujahideen campaign with Uighur veterans returning to Xinjiang and opposing Chinese rule with terrorism. So bad was it in 1992 (with a failed Uighur uprising in Kashgar) that China for months closed the Karakoram highway with Pakistan because it brought in Pakistani-trained terrorists, extremist Deobandi (not to be confused with the original Indian Deobandi) ideology, smuggled opium, hashish and later heroin and AIDS. The terrorism in Xinjiang (besides the other, non-traditional threats) has only gotten worse despite massive police bundobast, military border deployments and exercises, total monitoring of mosques and madrasahs funded by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in the libertine Eighties, and almost complete absence of media coverage of the violence and casualties in the belief that publicity gives oxygen to terrorists.

China is more than aware that Pakistan is a failed state and that large swathes of its territory are under terrorist control. Nor, presumably, does it entirely trust Pakistan's military any longer. Despite Pakistan president Asif Zardari's pleas on a state visit in October last and attempts to play the India card, China evaded committing to a Sino-Pak civilian nuclear deal like the Indo-US one. Within days of Zardari's visit, China put out a list of ETIM terrorists "that…were involved with similar groups and base camps" in a "South Asian country" (meaning Pakistan). One out of the list is Memetiming Memeti, ETIM head since 2003 when his predecessor, Hasan Mahsum, was killed in FATA. Bar the Mahsum incident, China has not very successfully pressured Pakistan to turn over hundreds of Al-Qaeda- and Taliban-trained ETIM and East Turkmenistan Liberation Organization (ETLO) terrorists who fought US allies during Operation Enduring Freedom.

What appears to be the case is that a hierarchy of terrorism victimhood has been established, with less and less recognition of victimisation as you go down the rung. While under Chinese pressure, the US and then the UN banned ETIM. However, America still does not readily and willingly differentiate Uighur terrorism from genuine Tibetan protests, condemning China for countering both (Seventeen ETIM terrorists in Guantanamo Bay won't likely be repatriated to China, though China has demanded them, if the facility is closed). Equally, China is loath to readily and willingly accept Indian victimisation from Pakistani terrorism, despite irrefutable evidence gathered from the Bombay attacks and from earlier ones. Having blocked it before, China unwillingly agreed to the UN Security Council ban of Jamiat-ul-Dawa, LeT's parent organisation. And its official media initially regurgitated the Pakistani lie that the Bombay attackers were Hindus masquerading as Muslims. Only days ago, the Chinese foreign minister, Yang Jiechi, called his Indian counterpart, Pranab Mukherjee, suggesting that China is going beyond proforma condemnation of terrorism against India, which is a change. But a more pro-active coming together is unavoidable.

No longer can terrorism raying out from Pakistan be combated singly by states (India, China or the US) or by blocs (NATO, Shanghai Cooperation Organisation), and their competition in other strategic spheres will have to be temporarily deferred or modified to overcome international jihad. Nor will the old crutches and dependencies serve any longer. For example, at the first hint of Indo-Pak trouble on Pakistan's eastern flank, the Pakistani Taliban has committed to fully back the Pakistan military and vowed hundreds of suicide attacks on Indian forces. This same Pakistani Taliban allied to the Pakistan army is behind ETIM, and China still (misguidedly) trusts the Pak army to deliver on ETIM terrorists. And this should also make it unreservedly clear to the US that the Pakistan army is growing to represent the Pakistani Taliban in uniform, and, beyond a point, they won't fight one another in FATA despite all the American threats and blandishments. The writing is on the wall for anyone to see. Pakistan is creepily becoming a jihadi state with nuclear weapons.

 

[Martian]

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.

"No longer can terrorism raying out from Pakistan be combated singly by states (India, China or the US) or by blocs (NATO, Shanghai Cooperation Organisation), and their competition in other strategic spheres will have to be temporarily deferred or modified to overcome international jihad."

The future points toward more international cooperation to combat terrorism.

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.

After 9/11, George Bush said that the United States will attack any country that harbors terrorists and that the United States will use any means that it sees fit. You don't think that China will issue a similar statement and start taking unilateral action as well?

 

[amitkriit]

Did Al Quaida find USA too hard a nut to crack? I think thats the reason they are shifting their attention to No. #2. Their basic instict says "Bomb something", and I think they have found a target worth bombing, nothing else matters.

 

[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.

Martian.....Lets put it this way : What's good for the goose, is good for the gander !!