9/11 Attacks - Celebatrions in China (?)

A few years ago I ran into this American fellow while traveling. He lived in Shanghai and had for several years. He told me that after the September 11 attacks took place, people in Shanghai were more or less dancing in the streets - launching fireworks, etc., etc.

I can’t find anything about this on the net.

Does anyone anything about it?

I also read in a very interesting book called Hegemon by Steven B. Mosher that authorities in Beijing were pleased by the attacks because it would focus attention away from China’s military spending, etc. This is not a question; just a comment. I can’t remember if he cited any evidence or not.

Thank you,

Ed

I remember a Russian in my company jumping up and saying “hurray, they get what they deserve” at 9/11, which left me speechless. I guess a lot of Nations which have lost a similar power like the US or are striving to become a super power will shout “hurray” whenever something like that happens to their perceived competitor.

We Krauts however are way past that world domination thingy. It’s not as good as it sounds actually. Just think how many shiny boots you would need…

Not saying such a reaction would be justified at all, but you should put it in context. Bear in mind these news stories from shortly before 9/11:

[quote]Reuters (U.K.): “NATO Bombed Chinese Embassy Deliberately–UK Paper” (10/18/99).

Agence France Presse (France): “NATO Bombed Chinese Embassy Deliberately: Report” (10/18/99).

Deutche Presse-Agentur (Germany): “NATO Bombed Chinese Embassy Deliberately, Observer Claims” (10/18/99).[/quote]
fair.org/index.php?page=1766

And this:

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m … i_63822584

And this:

[quote]Accounts in China and the United States of the mid-air collision between a US surveillance plane and a Chinese fighter jet differ sharply. Each side blames the other for the accident. . .

‘‘the immediate cause of the collision was the violation of flight rules by the US plane which made a sudden and big movement to veer towards the Chinese plane,’’ the state news agency reported.

‘‘The US plane’s nose and left wing rammed the tail of one of the Chinese planes causing it to lose control and plunge into the sea,’’ he said. [/quote]
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1260290.stm

And this:

wsws.org/articles/2003/dec20 … -d05.shtml

And this:

[quote]Tension over U.S. arms sales threatens to disrupt vital business ties between Taiwan and mainland China, experts say.

Beijing is likely to reiterate its “one China” stance that Taiwan is a renegade province, as Chinese Vice Premier Qian Qichen visits Washington on Thursday.

China also objects vehemently to a proposed U.S. sale of four destroyers equipped with the Aegis missile system to Taiwan. [/quote]
edition.cnn.com/2001/BUSINESS/as … index.html

And this:

defencejournal.com/2001/august/relations.htm

And this:

[quote]Washington’s relations with China have also been complicated by news of the detention of at least two American Chinese academics on the mainland.

One, Li Shaomin, was seized after he crossed the border from Hong Kong, where he is based.

The second Gao Zhan, has been accused of spying.[/quote]
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1255481.stm

And this:

[quote]US and Chinese hackers began exchanging blows today in what some Internet security experts have referred to as the opening salvo of a “cyberwar”, sparked by the recent loss of a Chinese fighter pilot whose jet collided with a US plane.

Since 1 April, the date of the collision, hackers have vandalised around 360 Web sites in the US and China. . . Web sites falling victim to the vandals so far include the National Institute of Health, the US Navy, the California Department of Energy, the US Labor Department and some corporate Web sites[/quote]
computerweekly.com/Articles/ … he-web.htm

That French guy is completely full of shit - bombing the Chinese embassy was one of the worst blunders of the war. And the idea that a lumbering spy plane was the cause of the collision as opposed to an agile fighter is ludicrous.

But you’re right, reporting anti US propaganda as fact in the Euro press does tend to make people celebrate when terrorists kill US civillians. In fact if you reported a bunch of lies about someone and they were attacked, it seems like you’d be done for incitement.

Queue bleating about free speech from people who have who think that a prohibition on prior restraint by the government means a right to falsely cry fire in a crowded theatre with total impunity.

Actually, there was considerable comment in the west and China that the Belgrade bombing was deliberate. It was the only bombing mission on Belgrade directed by the CIA. Speculation has rested on whether the Chinese were handing over material as they tracked US planes to the possibility Milosevic was supposed to be in the embassy at the time.

Alternatively, Lonely Planet has better maps than the CIA.

HG

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]Actually, there was considerable comment in the west and China that the Belgrade bombing was deliberate. It was the only bombing mission on Belgrade directed by the CIA. Speculation has rested on whether the Chinese were handing over material as they tracked US planes to the possibility Milosevic was supposed to be in the embassy at the time.

Alternatively, Lonely Planet has better maps than the CIA.

HG[/quote]
I just don’t belive that. Even in the Vietnam and Korean wars where the Chinese were aiding the enemy the US was very keen on not bombing them. Why pick a fight with China in Serbia when they were far more neutral?

It seems far more likely that it was mistake.

The CIA map was better in that it had military grade GPS coordinates so you could fire missiles through windows, worse in the sense that they hadn’t kept up with the fact that the embassy had moved.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombi … S_response

[quote]US response

According to the CIA, the headquarters of the Yugoslav Federal Directorate for Supply and Procurement (FDSP) - (Yugoimport SDPR) was the intended target but the process to locate the target was severely flawed. The technique to locate the coordinates of the FDSP headquarters from the street address should not have been used for aerial targeting because the method only provides an approximate location. The true location of the FDSP headquarters was about 300 meters away from calculated coordinates (the Chinese embassy). This flaw in the address location process went undetected. A secondary process to determine whether any diplomatic or other facilities off-limits to targeting were nearby was also flawed. Multiple databases within the Intelligence Community and the Department of Defense all reflected the Embassy in its pre-1996 location in Belgrade. If the databases had accurately located the Chinese Embassy, the misidentification of the FDSP building would have been recognized and corrected. Three days before the bombing, an intelligence officer realized the FDSP building was a block away from the identified location but this information failed to stop the bombing because of miscommunication.[/quote]

Either it was a cockup or Bill Clinton wanted to start a war with China. One of those explanations seems much more plausible to me than the other.

It’s just the Guardian stirring up anti US sentiment, and MT is right that this sort of thing makes people dance in the streets when the US is attacked.

And it doesn’t surprise me that the George “slam dunk” Tenet’s CIA screwed up so spectacularly. From what I’ve read the US military regarded them as totally irresponsible.