China vows stronger ties with Pakistan

sorcerer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
18,348
Likes
53,741
Country flag
China's top legislator Zhang Dejiang met in Beijing on Monday with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee of Pakistan Rashad Mahmood, pledging stronger ties with the country.

Zhang, chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC), strongly condemned the suicide bombing in the eastern Pakistan city of Lahore that left at least 55 dead and 118 others injured, and extended condolences to the victims.

Calling the two countries "all-weather strategic partners," Zhang said beefing up China-Pakistan cooperation and upgrading bilateral ties are part of the consensus reached by both leaders.

He urged various departments of both countries, including legislatures and armed forces, to implement the consensus of both leaders, aid the construction of major cooperation projects, enhance trade cooperation and cultural exchanges.

Zhang also called for joint efforts to fight terrorism.

The Chinese NPC hopes to enhance friendly exchanges with the Pakistani parliament, he added.

Rashad said the Pakistan-China friendship is a cornerstone of his country's foreign policy, vowing to back China's efforts to combat evil forces such as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement.

source:China vows stronger ties with Pakistan - News - Politics - Russian Radio
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,133
Likes
23,722
China must have the strongest ties with Pakistan, given that the US is trying to and appears to be successfully boxing in China from all sides.

Further, unless Pakistan stops the Islamic fundamentalist from using Pakistan as the springboard for sending in agent provocateurs to agitate the Uighurs, China will have to a huge problem at hand in keeping the law and order in Xinjiang.

China has no option but to be alongside Pakistan.
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,696
Likes
3,009
I really hope (for the Chinese sake) that China doesn't get blamed for the soup that Pakistan would be in future; like the US and Russia get blamed for entering Afghanistan.
Somehow these adventures have not turned out to be fruitful in the history. Trying to grip a sinking ship can drown the saviour too.
 

sorcerer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
18,348
Likes
53,741
Country flag
Well, USA began its 'Live in relationship' with Pakistan in an efforts to combat evil forces such as the Taliban and AQ.
Taking that cue, China should go ahead and make efforts to combat evil forces such as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement..
:thumb: China.

China provides Pak with arms and tech.
Pak provides China with terrorists and waves of islamic movements in return for goodies and to keep em coming.
Later, Pakistan will fake a headache when China calls it for actual action.

In a away, USA can use Pakistan to bleed China to death..

:popcorn:
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,322
Likes
11,625
Country flag
Chinese have become increasingly wary of Pakis on the East Turkistan issue
 

Android

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
52
Likes
17
No wonder they are pushing in for stronger ties,Pakistan is a terrorist hub and a major headace for china looking at sudden surge in sepratist movement on its eastern borders,hope oppression of people someday doen't lead to an outburst with terrorist jumping all across china. Though it looks just a beginning ,if we go by taliban's concern of oppression muslims in east turkmenistan region.
In a away, USA can use Pakistan to bleed China to death..

:popcorn:
If this happens then one thing is for sure,that the middle man(pakistan) would continue to burn just like it's burning today.
 

brational

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
1,064
Likes
1,759
Country flag
China fears competition and equity. It never ventures into countries which are stable and prosperous. As @jus rrightly pointed out. They were highly active in Myanmar too but they are becoming marginalized as the country is moving towards political reforms.

Pakistan is their obvious choice as it fits the prerequisites of CCP to be isolated and abandoned by the rest of the world. The only difference between north koreans and Pakis is that the North Koreans are well disciplined and controlled, but the Pakis have no class as they will bite their master in the days to come. When China realise the fact it will be too late.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tramp

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
1,464
Likes
579
Sino-Pak ties are claimed by Islamabad to be higher than the Himalayas and deeper than the oceans .... now what more do they want?
 

Sylex21

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
439
Likes
329
China and Pakistan should hook up on Indian shadi.com
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,133
Likes
23,722
Chinese have become increasingly wary of Pakis on the East Turkistan issue
East Turkmenistan will come to bit both China and Pakistan.

ISIS has already put China on its crosshairs.
 

roma

NRI in Europe
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
3,577
Likes
2,489
Country flag
following on from a post above actually i think punjabstan is jolly smart to make great use of china.

well done to our fellow punjabis !
 

Srinivas_K

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
5,952
Likes
6,933
Country flag
China must have the strongest ties with Pakistan, given that the US is trying to and appears to be successfully boxing in China from all sides.

Further, unless Pakistan stops the Islamic fundamentalist from using Pakistan as the springboard for sending in agent provocateurs to agitate the Uighurs, China will have to a huge problem at hand in keeping the law and order in Xinjiang.

China has no option but to be alongside Pakistan.
It is the otherway around Mr @Ray

China have plans to get a grip on Xinjiang, and Gawador corridor using terror.

They will aid some pro Pak China groups and make their presence strong in the name of fighting terror in Pakistani Areas and also using the same reason they will oppress the Xinjiang people.

A few attacks by evil terrorists on Chinese containers or Gwadarport to disrupt Pakistani economy will make the Chinese soldiers land in Pakistan to support their friend and take control of the things.

Since it is Islamic terror they are fighting no one will question China's intentions. Using the same reason they can establish naval and military bases in Pakistan which will add to the already existing military bases of USA in the guise of embassies and other support buildings in Pakistan.

The tactic is similar to what USA is been doing in the name of Hunting terrorists.

USA pictured itself successfully as world policeman, in the name of WOT. No one questioned them when they established military bases and fought war.

Now they are inviting every nation around Afghanistan to deal with the mess they have created, The intent is make all the Asian nations fight there and weaken themselves in covert wars.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,133
Likes
23,722
It is the otherway around Mr @Ray

China have plans to get a grip on Xinjiang, and Gawador corridor using terror.

They will aid some pro Pak China groups and make their presence strong in the name of fighting terror in pakistani Areas and also using the same reason they will oppress the Xinjiang people.

Since it is Islamic terror they are fighting no one will question China's intentions. Using the same reason they can establish naval and military bases in Pakistan which will add to the already existing military bases of USA in the guise of embassies and other support buildings in Pakistan.

The tactic is similar to what USA is been doing in the name of Hunting terrorists.

USA pictured itself successfully as world policeman, in the name of WOT. No one questioned them when they established military bases and fought war.

Now they are inviting every nation around Afghanistan to deal with the mess they have created, The intent is make all the Asian nations fight there and weaken themselves in covert wars.
There are three issues that you should ponder upon:

(a) The ISIS growing clout and eyeing Turkmenistan.

(b) The AQ & ISIS rivalry and each will take the Islamic cause in the world to include Turkmenistan as their personal preserve to spread Islamic fundamentalism and hence terrorism to achieve it.

(c) the US possibly assisting the Uighurs through the Uighur World Congress and ensuring that China is kept on the hop and less focused at world and SCS domination.

Now, shake and stir that and you find a potent mix that is working against Chinese interests.

As I see it China is still not in that formidable position to open bases. At best, they can establish their rights as ports of call.

Just a thought.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Srinivas_K

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
5,952
Likes
6,933
Country flag
There are three issues that you should ponder upon:

(a) The ISIS growing clout and eyeing Turkmenistan.

(b) The AQ & ISIS rivalry and each will take the Islamic cause in the world to include Turkmenistan as their personal preserve to spread Islamic fundamentalism and hence terrorism to achieve it.

(c) the US possibly assisting the Uighurs through the Uighur World Congress and ensuring that China is kept on the hop and less focused at world and SCS domination.

Now, shake and stir that and you find a potent mix that is working against Chinese interests.

As I see it China is still not in that formidable position to open bases. At best, they can establish their rights as ports of call.
ISIS is still in the middle east, Al queda declared china as their target but they are weak now.

China is known for doing genocide and oppressing people, USA's help or a terror leader sitting in Pakistan helping Ughyurs will only help China to do genocide in the name of Islamic terror.

Islam is the enemy now for the west, Govts all around the world will support USA and USA will also support China as long as the threat is there.

There is no continous border between China and USA to liberate East Turkestan nor USA has plans to go to war with China, Mean while Ughyrs will be hanged, killed and oppressed under the account of Islamic terror.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,133
Likes
23,722
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) used to have a different name: al Qaeda in Iraq.

US troops and allied Sunni militias defeated al Qaeda in Iraq during the post-2006 "surge" — but it didn't destroy them. The US commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, described the group in 2010 as down but "fundamentally the same." In 2011, the group rebooted. ISIS successfully freed a number of prisoners held by the Iraqi government and, slowly but surely, began rebuilding their strength.

ISIS and al-Qaeda divorced in February 2014. "Over the years, there have been many signs that the relationship between al Qaeda Central (AQC) and the group's strongest, most unruly franchise was strained," Barack Mendelsohn, a political scientist at Haverford College, writes. Their relationship "had always been more a matter of mutual interests than of shared ideology."

According to Mendelsohn, Syria pushed that relationship to the breaking point. ISIS claimed that it controlled Jabhat al-Nusra, the official al-Qaeda splinter in Syria, and defied orders from al-Qaeda's leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to back off. "This was the first time a leader of an al-Qaeda franchise had publicly disobeyed" a movement leader, he says. ISIS also defied repeated orders to kill fewer civilians in Syria, and the tensions led to al-Qaeda disavowing any connection with ISIS in a February communiqué.

Today, ISIS and al-Qaeda compete for influence over Islamist extremist groups around the world. Some experts believe ISIS may overtake al-Qaeda as the most influential group in this area globally.

ISIS used to be al-Qaeda in Iraq - 17 things about ISIS and Iraq you need to know - Vox
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,133
Likes
23,722
How the US Helped ISIS Grow Into a Monster
In his new book, Patrick Cockburn writes that America's failed strategy will only make ISIS stronger.

his story first appeared on the TomDispatch website. This essay is excerpted from the first chapter of Patrick Cockburn's new book, The Jihadis Return: ISIS and the New Sunni Uprising, with special thanks to his publisher, OR Books. The first section is a new introduction written for TomDispatch.

There are extraordinary elements in the present US policy in Iraq and Syria that are attracting surprisingly little attention. In Iraq, the US is carrying out air strikes and sending in advisers and trainers to help beat back the advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (better known as ISIS) on the Kurdish capital, Erbil. The US would presumably do the same if ISIS surrounds or attacks Baghdad. But in Syria, Washington's policy is the exact opposite: there the main opponent of ISIS is the Syrian government and the Syrian Kurds in their northern enclaves. Both are under attack from ISIS, which has taken about a third of the country, including most of its oil and gas production facilities.



But US, Western European, Saudi, and Arab Gulf policy is to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad, which happens to be the policy of ISIS and other jihadis in Syria. If Assad goes, then ISIS will be the beneficiary, since it is either defeating or absorbing the rest of the Syrian armed opposition. There is a pretense in Washington and elsewhere that there exists a "moderate" Syrian opposition being helped by the US, Qatar, Turkey, and the Saudis. It is, however, weak and getting more so by the day. Soon the new caliphate may stretch from the Iranian border to the Mediterranean and the only force that can possibly stop this from happening is the Syrian army.

The reality of US policy is to support the government of Iraq, but not Syria, against ISIS. But one reason that group has been able to grow so strong in Iraq is that it can draw on its resources and fighters in Syria. Not everything that went wrong in Iraq was the fault of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, as has now become the political and media consensus in the West. Iraqi politicians have been telling me for the last two years that foreign backing for the Sunni revolt in Syria would inevitably destabilize their country as well. This has now happened.

By continuing these contradictory policies in two countries, the US has ensured that ISIS can reinforce its fighters in Iraq from Syria and vice versa. So far, Washington has been successful in escaping blame for the rise of ISIS by putting all the blame on the Iraqi government. In fact, it has created a situation in which ISIS can survive and may well flourish.


Using the al-Qa'ida Label

The sharp increase in the strength and reach of jihadist organizations in Syria and Iraq has generally been unacknowledged until recently by politicians and media in the West. A primary reason for this is that Western governments and their security forces narrowly define the jihadist threat as those forces directly controlled by al-Qa'ida central or "core" al-Qa'ida. This enables them to present a much more cheerful picture of their successes in the so-called war on terror than the situation on the ground warrants.

In fact, the idea that the only jihadis to be worried about are those with the official blessing of al-Qa'ida is naïve and self-deceiving. It ignores the fact, for instance, that ISIS has been criticized by the al-Qa'ida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri for its excessive violence and sectarianism. After talking to a range of Syrian jihadi rebels not directly affiliated with al-Qa'ida in southeast Turkey earlier this year, a source told me that "without exception they all expressed enthusiasm for the 9/11 attacks and hoped the same thing would happen in Europe as well as the US"

Jihadi groups ideologically close to al-Qa'ida have been relabeled as moderate if their actions are deemed supportive of US policy aims. In Syria, the Americans backed a plan by Saudi Arabia to build up a "Southern Front" based in Jordan that would be hostile to the Assad government in Damascus, and simultaneously hostile to al-Qa'ida-type rebels in the north and east. The powerful but supposedly moderate Yarmouk Brigade, reportedly the planned recipient of anti-aircraft missiles from Saudi Arabia, was intended to be the leading element in this new formation. But numerous videos show that the Yarmouk Brigade has frequently fought in collaboration with JAN, the official al-Qa'ida affiliate. Since it was likely that, in the midst of battle, these two groups would share their munitions, Washington was effectively allowing advanced weaponry to be handed over to its deadliest enemy. Iraqi officials confirm that they have captured sophisticated arms from ISIS fighters in Iraq that were originally supplied by outside powers to forces considered to be anti-al-Qa'ida in Syria.

The name al-Qa'ida has always been applied flexibly when identifying an enemy. In 2003 and 2004 in Iraq, as armed Iraqi opposition to the American and British-led occupation mounted, US officials attributed most attacks to al-Qa'ida, though many were carried out by nationalist and Baathist groups. Propaganda like this helped to persuade nearly 60% of US voters prior to the Iraq invasion that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and those responsible for 9/11, despite the absence of any evidence for this. In Iraq itself, indeed throughout the entire Muslim world, these accusations have benefited al-Qa'ida by exaggerating its role in the resistance to the US and British occupation.

Precisely the opposite PR tactics were employed by Western governments in 2011 in Libya, where any similarity between al-Qa'ida and the NATO-backed rebels fighting to overthrow the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, was played down. Only those jihadis who had a direct operational link to the al-Qa'ida "core" of Osama bin Laden were deemed to be dangerous. The falsity of the pretense that the anti-Gaddafi jihadis in Libya were less threatening than those in direct contact with al-Qa'ida was forcefully, if tragically, exposed when US ambassador Chris Stevens was killed by jihadi fighters in Benghazi in September 2012. These were the same fighters lauded by Western governments and media for their role in the anti-Gaddafi uprising.


Imagining al-Qa'ida as the Mafia

Al-Qa'ida is an idea rather than an organization, and this has long been the case. For a five-year period after 1996, it did have cadres, resources, and camps in Afghanistan, but these were eliminated after the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001. Subsequently, al-Qa'ida's name became primarily a rallying cry, a set of Islamic beliefs, centering on the creation of an Islamic state, the imposition of sharia, a return to Islamic customs, the subjugation of women, and the waging of holy war against other Muslims, notably the Shia, who are considered heretics worthy of death. At the center of this doctrine for making war is an emphasis on self-sacrifice and martyrdom as a symbol of religious faith and commitment. This has resulted in using untrained but fanatical believers as suicide bombers, to devastating effect.

It has always been in the interest of the US and other governments that al-Qa'ida be viewed as having a command-and-control structure like a mini-Pentagon, or like the mafia in America. This is a comforting image for the public because organized groups, however demonic, can be tracked down and eliminated through imprisonment or death. More alarming is the reality of a movement whose adherents are self-recruited and can spring up anywhere.

Osama bin Laden's gathering of militants, which he did not call al-Qa'ida until after 9/11, was just one of many jihadi groups 12 years ago. But today its ideas and methods are predominant among jihadis because of the prestige and publicity it gained through the destruction of the Twin Towers, the war in Iraq, and its demonization by Washington as the source of all anti-American evil. These days, there is a narrowing of differences in the beliefs of jihadis, regardless of whether or not they are formally linked to al-Qa'ida central.

Unsurprisingly, governments prefer the fantasy picture of al-Qa'ida because it enables them to claim victories when it succeeds in killing its better known members and allies. Often, those eliminated are given quasi-military ranks, such as "head of operations," to enhance the significance of their demise. The culmination of this heavily publicized but largely irrelevant aspect of the "war on terror" was the killing of bin Laden in Abbottabad in Pakistan in 2011. This enabled President Obama to grandstand before the American public as the man who had presided over the hunting down of al-Qa'ida's leader. In practical terms, however, his death had little impact on al-Qa'ida-type jihadi groups, whose greatest expansion has occurred subsequently.


Ignoring the Roles of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan

The key decisions that enabled al-Qa'ida to survive, and later to expand, were made in the hours immediately after 9/11. Almost every significant element in the project to crash planes into the Twin Towers and other iconic American buildings led back to Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden was a member of the Saudi elite, and his father had been a close associate of the Saudi monarch. Citing a CIA report from 2002, the official 9/11 report says that al-Qa'ida relied for its financing on "a variety of donors and fundraisers, primarily in the Gulf countries and particularly in Saudi Arabia."

The report's investigators repeatedly found their access limited or denied when seeking information in Saudi Arabia. Yet President George W. Bush apparently never even considered holding the Saudis responsible for what happened. An exit of senior Saudis, including bin Laden relatives, from the US was facilitated by the US government in the days after 9/11. Most significant, 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report about the relationship between the attackers and Saudi Arabia were cut and never published, despite a promise by President Obama to do so, on the grounds of national security.

In 2009, eight years after 9/11, a cable from the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, revealed by WikiLeaks, complained that donors in Saudi Arabia constituted the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide. But despite this private admission, the US and Western Europeans continued to remain indifferent to Saudi preachers whose message, spread to millions by satellite TV, YouTube, and Twitter, called for the killing of the Shia as heretics. These calls came as al-Qa'ida bombs were slaughtering people in Shia neighborhoods in Iraq. A sub-headline in another State Department cable in the same year reads: "Saudi Arabia: Anti-Shi'ism as Foreign Policy?" Now, five years later, Saudi-supported groups have a record of extreme sectarianism against non-Sunni Muslims.

Pakistan, or rather Pakistani military intelligence in the shape of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), was the other parent of al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, and jihadi movements in general. When the Taliban was disintegrating under the weight of US bombing in 2001, its forces in northern Afghanistan were trapped by anti-Taliban forces. Before they surrendered, hundreds of ISI members, military trainers, and advisers were hastily evacuated by air. Despite the clearest evidence of ISI's sponsorship of the Taliban and jihadis in general, Washington refused to confront Pakistan, and thereby opened the way for the resurgence of the Taliban after 2003, which neither the US nor NATO has been able to reverse.

The "war on terror" has failed because it did not target the jihadi movement as a whole and, above all, was not aimed at Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the two countries that fostered jihadism as a creed and a movement. The US did not do so because these countries were important American allies whom it did not want to offend. Saudi Arabia is an enormous market for American arms, and the Saudis have cultivated, and on occasion purchased, influential members of the American political establishment. Pakistan is a nuclear power with a population of 180 million and a military with close links to the Pentagon.

The spectacular resurgence of al-Qa'ida and its offshoots has happened despite the huge expansion of American and British intelligence services and their budgets after 9/11. Since then, the US, closely followed by Britain, has fought wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and adopted procedures normally associated with police states, such as imprisonment without trial, rendition, torture, and domestic espionage. Governments wage the "war on terror" claiming that the rights of individual citizens must be sacrificed to secure the safety of all.

In the face of these controversial security measures, the movements against which they are aimed have not been defeated but rather have grown stronger. At the time of 9/11, al-Qa'ida was a small, generally ineffectual organization; by 2014 al-Qa'ida-type groups were numerous and powerful.

In other words, the "war on terror," the waging of which has shaped the political landscape for so much of the world since 2001, has demonstrably failed. Until the fall of Mosul, nobody paid much attention.

Patrick Cockburn is Middle East correspondent for the Independent and worked previously for the Financial Times. He has written three books on Iraq's recent history as well as a memoir, The Broken Boy, and, with his son, a book on schizophrenia, Henry's Demons. He won the Martha Gellhorn Prize in 2005, the James Cameron Prize in 2006, and the Orwell Prize for Journalism in 2009. His forthcoming book, The Jihadis Return: ISIS and the New Sunni Uprising, is now available exclusively from OR Books. This excerpt (with an introductory section written for TomDispatch) is taken from that book. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.

How the US Helped ISIS Grow Into a Monster | Mother Jones
If this is correct, then it shows what skulduggery goes on in politics and strategy that cause immense chaos and hardship to the common people.

Therefore, we cannot speculate as to what can or will not happen.
 

sorcerer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
18,348
Likes
53,741
Country flag
It is the otherway around Mr @Ray

China have plans to get a grip on Xinjiang, and Gawador corridor using terror.

They will aid some pro Pak China groups and make their presence strong in the name of fighting terror in pakistani Areas and also using the same reason they will oppress the Xinjiang people.

Since it is Islamic terror they are fighting no one will question China's intentions. Using the same reason they can establish naval and military bases in Pakistan which will add to the already existing military bases of USA in the guise of embassies and other support buildings in Pakistan.

The tactic is similar to what USA is been doing in the name of Hunting terrorists.

USA pictured itself successfully as world policeman, in the name of WOT. No one questioned them when they established military bases and fought war.

Now they are inviting every nation around Afghanistan to deal with the mess they have created, The intent is make all the Asian nations fight there and weaken themselves in covert wars.

Yes, you are right. but the problem when you use religion as a bait to achieve strategic objectives is that, not many "fanatics" understand your strategic objectives and then CCP is in deeper than deep shit relationship with pak.

Its islamic terror, and every player who is in this orgie has own economic and religious intentions. That means for China , suppression in Xinjiang wont be a unilateral war along with Pak, even though Pak controls its faction of terrorists. We have seen from time to time Pakistan establishment breaking down cuz of own terrorists performing uncontrolled acts of terrorism.
ISIS has larger interests and if ISIS has to keep its larger interest of economy., it has to promote its very larger smoke-screen of 'religion'. ISIS will use every opportunity they get to promote their deceptive interests on China in Xinjiang.

USA lost its economic clout in such islamic wars; USA has suffered an economic hemorrhage when it started the war on terror.
Using USA created terorism in Pakistan against USA "could" be a larger plan of China via Pak. Its justified by CCP's method of deception. What better way to bleed USA economically and gain advantage.

in Xinjiang, the plan could backfire on China, cuz its dealings with 'sentiments' and 'emotions' which always remains as an underguaged factor in war. Every war on terror will give Pakistan establishments goodies as war funds, compensations and weapons. Its a nice business for people in Pakistani establishments but plight for every common man in Pakistan.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/defence-strategic-issues/64608-unconventional-warfare-5.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Srinivas_K

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
5,952
Likes
6,933
Country flag
Yes, you are right. but the problem when you use religion as a bait to achieve strategic objectives is that, not many "fanatics" understand your strategic objectives and then CCP is in deeper than deep shit relationship with pak.

Its islamic terror, and every player who is in this orgie has own economic and religious intentions. That means for China , suppression in Xinjiang wont be a unilateral war along with Pak, even though Pak controls its faction of terrorists. We have seen from time to time Pakistan establishment breaking down cuz of own terrorists performing uncontrolled acts of terrorism.
ISIS has larger interests and if ISIS has to keep its larger interest of economy., it has to promote its very larger smoke-screen of 'religion'. ISIS will use every opportunity they get to promote their deceptive interests on China in Xinjiang.
Compare a rag tag organization of 10000 poorly trained militants with 6 or 7 trillion economic giant !!

USA lost its economic clout in such islamic wars; USA has suffered an economic hemorrhage when it started the war on terror.
Using USA created terorism in Pakistan against USA "could" be a larger plan of China via Pak. Its justified by CCP's method of deception. What better way to bleed USA economically and gain advantage.
Are you serious??

Rumour is that they have planned 5 wars after this WOT.


in Xinjiang, the plan could backfire on China, cuz its dealings with 'sentiments' and 'emotions' which always remains as an underguaged factor in war. Every war on terror will give Pakistan establishments goodies as war funds, compensations and weapons. Its a nice business for people in Pakistani establishments but plight for every common man in Pakistan.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/defence-strategic-issues/64608-unconventional-warfare-5.html
The policies which China follow will oppress the ordinary people in Ughyur, but again China do not deal with people. China will simply shift millions of people from East to West and make the Ughyurs a minority. Pakistan will help China in this regard by making the freedom movement of Ughyurs look like Islamic terror.

Weakening of China by USA is correct assessment considering Afghanistan is next to East Turkestan. But China will respond and it has its own options.
 

Global Defence

Articles

Top