PRC Diplomat Killed by Xinjiang Terrorists


#1

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/020701/afp/020701024728asiapacificnews.html

A sobering reminder not to engage in terrorist behaviors, or was it staged?


#2

I think it was another protest against Chinese rule.
http://www.atimes.com/china/DD24Ad01.html


#3

Call me cynical but the particular locale is too important to the USA. The supposedly coincidental timing of a PRC diplomat murder, and this new MFN issue raises a question of just whom benefits by this terrorist act? The Shanghai Five or NATO-Russia?

MFN Status for “Soviet Allies”

Falklands Replay of AA and "Exocet " Anti-Ship Missiles?

quote:
U.S. intelligence officials disclosed to The Washington Times in January that China was modifying the Su-30s to carry advanced C-801 anti-ship cruise missiles.

PRC’s “War on Terrorism” is a military campaign against human rights.


#4
quote:
Originally posted by wwwright: I think it was another protest against Chinese rule. [url=http://www.atimes.com/china/DD24Ad01.html]http://www.atimes.com/china/DD24Ad01.html[/url]

That article discredits itself from the start by referring throughout to “Xinjiang Province.” It is officially known as the “Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region.” Why would China call it that if it were trying to forcibly assimilate the Uighurs, as the article suggests? The article also does not mention at all the Huis (Chinese-speaking moslems,) who make up a considerable proportion of Xinjiang’s population.

It suggests that the independence movement in Xinjiang cannot be called terrorist because it existed before Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Are those the only terrorist organisations in the world? China classifies this movement as terrorist because it does things like blowing up buses full of civilians. If that is not terrorist, what is it?

The page is full of ads for Taiwanese media, suggesting that the Online Asian Times is not an objective international news medium, but some kind of Taiwanese propaganda front.


#5

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Juba:
[QB]

That article discredits itself from the start by referring throughout to “Xinjiang Province.” It is officially known as the “Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region.” Why would China call it that if it were trying to forcibly assimilate the Uighurs, as the article suggests?>

I stand corrected. Forget that Tibet ever existed as an independent country. It is now called Tibet Autonomous Region. Why would China call it that if it were trying to forcibly assimilate the Tibetans?

“It suggests that the independence movement in Xinjiang cannot be called terrorist because it existed before Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Are those the only terrorist organisations in the world? China classifies this movement as terrorist because it does things like blowing up buses full of civilians. If that is not terrorist, what is it?”

You confuse the PLO with the Uighurs. The PLO blows up buses.
The Israelis shoot PLO political leaders.
The Israels aren’t considered terrorists so neither should the Uighurs.

The page is full of ads for Taiwanese media, suggesting that the Online Asian Times is not an objective international news medium, but some kind of Taiwanese propaganda front.>

I can’t speak for it other than it comes from Hong Kong, usually not friendly to Taiwan. The other articles are fairly critical of Taiwan as well.


#6

Futhermore, if China had its way, you would be living in the Taiwan Autonomous Region right now.


#7

Well that would sort the Pinyin Problem out once and for all.


#8

People seem to forget that the Communist Chinese aided the Khmer Rouge in their rise to power and the genocide which followed. Pol Pot and his ilk traveled on PRC passports and were sheltered in Beijing following the KR collapse. Remember the Sino-Vietnamese War? China invaded Vietnam in order to relieve the Vietnamese pressure on the KR. They failed miserably…the Khmer Rouge fell and the Vietnamese kicked Chinese butt.


#9

Well, I saw there were buses attacked in the Xinjiang “Autonomous” Region, and
the PLO did assassinate an Israeli Minister, so any attempt to weight killing government officials versus killing the general public as a tactic would be an interesting discussion for revolutionaries, but let’s not go there on this medium of discourse.

Read the end of the article again. The Xinjiang Independence movement “is not a creation of such (radical or terrorist) organizations.”
The point is China would gladly use the words of George W. to justify it’s own form of repression and terrorism.

hexuan: that would save having to remember all those strokes as well. Let’s just used simplified Chinese.


#10
quote[quote] I can't speak for it (this website article) -[url=http://www.atimes.com/china/DD24Ad01.html]http://www.atimes.com/china/DD24Ad01.html[/url]- other than it comes from Hong Kong, usually not friendly to Taiwan. The other articles are fairly critical of Taiwan as well. (wwwright) [/quote]

1)This news website “atimes” is definitely not from Hong Kong. wwwright is quite wwwwrong!
This news agency is most likely from Bangkok or Malaysia and written by a moslem (Indian). There are a lot of cheap indian reporters in Hong Kong but such stories are too trashy and will not print.

2)Also what would a Hong Kong news website have to gain by criticising Chinese (PRC) suppression of violence and terrorism in Xinjiang ( of a minority) ? Violence and terrorism is counterproductive to (HK) businessmen and China wanting to develop Xinjiang. HK investors are the top most complainers of lack of “security” in Xinjiang the last time HK was invited to go “West.”
Hong Kong businessmen have the most to benefit from stability and the rule of law in that region.
Moslem separatists are causing the unrest in Xinjiang and delaying the economic development of that region. Also historically, the Xinjiang region has always belonged to China, as far back as the Ming dynasty (1600sAD).

quote:
That article discredits itself from the start by referring throughout to "Xinjiang Province." It is officially known as the "Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region."

Why would China call it that if it were trying to forcibly assimilate the Uighurs, as the article suggests? The article also does not mention at all the Huis (Chinese-speaking moslems,) who make up a considerable proportion of Xinjiang’s population. (Juba)


“Autonomous” region means that area/region has more autonomy in its day to day self government/management than other provinces which do not have “autonomous” in their name. Like for instance it does not have to keep to the national birth control rate of one child per couple, less contribution to national taxes etc… It has its own export/import quotas etc for certain goods. It obviously does not mean such places are an independent country.

Juba is however quite correct in saying that the writer of this atimes article is incredibly biased in his picture of Xinjiang, refusing to provide a broad picture and exaggerating the “mistreatments” of a small minority.

I always think that such Indian (moslem) reporters or whatever, should first go on TV, show their faces, tell people they are Moslems, then show people where they are educated, then which news organisations they have worked for and be prepared to argue on TV with a moslem mullah who has been hand picked by the PRC govt as a Mullah ( religious leader), someone who has actually lived and worked in Xinjiang. ( But of course such creeps or little misinformants “reporters” will never dare travel to Xinjiang with a television crew). Also please please show us why the Moslem way of governing has led Malaysia or will lead Xinjiang being as properous as any of the Asian “tigers.”

quote[quote] People seem to forget that the Communist Chinese aided the Khmer Rouge in their rise to power and the genocide which followed. Pol Pot and his ilk traveled on PRC passports and were sheltered in Beijing following the KR collapse. Remember the Sino-Vietnamese War? China invaded Vietnam in order to relieve the Vietnamese pressure on the KR. They failed miserably....the Khmer Rouge fell and the Vietnamese kicked Chinese butt. (O'Brian) [/quote]

Wow this above quote is so full of errors, I’m just wondering whether it is even worth commenting. The latest report in the SCMP suggests that Pol Pot was poisoned by his own KR lefties. And if China was such a staunch backer of KR why is the country still in such a mess Oh forget it. This message will just get too long.

I recently saw a documentary about border trade between China’s Yunnan province and the socialist republic of Vietnam and it seems Sino-Vietnamese trade is really roaring ahead.

What is happening with Vietnam and China now is what should be happening (also) with Cambodia ( assuming they were such buddies) but it is not at all happening. If China approves Cambodia so much why is it still not helpig Cambodia now. KR of old is dead but factions of KR is still around metamorphose perhaps. Vietnam is a Russian offspring or an orphan. Oh well so much “friendship”.


#11
quote:
Originally posted by drambuie:

Wow this above quote is so full of errors, I’m just wondering whether it is even worth commenting. The latest report in the SCMP suggests that Pol Pot was poisoned by his own KR lefties. And if China was such a staunch backer of KR why is the country still in such a mess Oh forget it. This message will just get too long.


You idiot…since you OBVIOUSLY know nothing about what you’re talking about, why don’t you read this:

http://www.monash.edu.au/pubs/montage/Montage_96-05/PolPot.html

It’s short enough so that some of it’s substance might adhere to that teaspoon of gray matter between your ears.

And, you ask “if China was such a staunch backer of KR why is the country still in such a mess?”. Well that should be obvious…Cambodia is in a mess because of China’s interference with both it’s domestic and international affairs.


#12

Reality check is that O’Brian is correct on the KR and I am afraid that draumie is way, way out in left field. Almost indicative of PRC Chinese whom I’ve encountered before and they are not very well informed in the arena of politics or history. Pol Pot was a frequent visitor to the PRC as well as was Prince Sinanouk.


#13

China’s political interference in the region goes completely unremarked upon domestically, as does its rewriting of its own history.

I always find it ironic when putting this to mainlanders who inform me that as I am not Chinese I cannot possibly understand Chinese history. Very very few mainland Chinese know anything about the history of their country’s foreign policy, understandably so. Anyone who has ever lived in China will concur that the only news items ever broadcast about Taiwan, for example, are disasters.

wwwright: Simplified Characters are another example of the extent the CCP will go to in order to exercise control over the population. Even the language you use must be approved by the CCP. It remains a criminal offence to publish books or display advertisements or signs using traditional Chinese characters. Very effective instant censorship for the CCP in its developmental stages. Mao was a very clever man.

drambuie: HK businessmen don’t run Hong Kong and never have. HK businessmen couldn’t give a monkey’s about Xinjiang and neither does anybody else in China. People from Xinjiang are regarded with naked contempt by people in Beijing and Shanghai. China cares as much about the welfare of people in Xinjiang as the USA cares about the welfare of Kuwaitis, and for the same reasons.


#14

I was going to say, my, my, people get awfully sensative about their news sources. How about Amnesty International then?
http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/eur/kazakstan!Open for Khazakstan and

http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/asa/china!Open for China

Note the opening paragraph and section on the XUAR.

Even Hong Kong gets mentioned at the end.


#15

The idea is that Hong Kong people are very concerned about how various parts of China get treated lest they be next in line for punishment. I have always found it hard to have sympathy for Hong Kongers: it has always been for them a case of “Shei dui wo hao, jiu kao shei”. They whinged and moaned about the British, and started sucking up to Beijing the minute it became apparent 1997 was actually going to happen. Now they are appearently disappointed that Beijing’s Man in Hong Kong is only concerned with keeping Beijing happy. I don’t buy that. Everyone knew it was curtains for Honkers after 1997. Those of us with close connections to Hong Kong debated it ad nauseum since 1989 - it was obvious the tail could never wag the dog. But I think I for one underestimated the degree of capitulation we are seeing now.

The Taiwanese don’t appear to have that fatalistic attitude, and of course China does not have the control over Taiwan that it has over Hong Kong. There is no “Taiwanese Shanghai” waiting in the wings to take over if Taiwan proves too problematic. If Taiwan is assimilated it will have to be on terms much more favourable to the locals that was the case in Hong Kong. Whether or not there will be any greater degree of consultation with the populace is debatable (I think there will have to be). The “don’t rock the boat” attitude that thwarted Patten in his last ditch attempt to re-write the Basic Law will not be present in Taiwan. I see no parallel between Hong Kong, Tibet, or Xinjiang and Taiwan, and to draw or recognise one is to fall victim to CCP propaganda.


#16

I lived in Hong Kong as an exchange student at the Chinese University in Shatin from 1982-1983. Even that long before the changeover in 1997, there were hopes that China wouldn’t kill the goose (HK) that lays the golden egg for China. I heard that major HK businesspeople still sat down on the Chinese side of the negotiating table because they saw the coming change as inevitable. Maybe because they were Chinese as well, but I am always curious about people’s motives.


#17
quote:
Originally posted by wwwright: I heard that major HK businesspeople still sat down on the Chinese side of the negotiating table because they saw the coming change as inevitable. Maybe because they were Chinese as well, but I am always curious about people's motives.

“The capitalists will sell us the rope by which we hang them.” - V.I. Lenin


#18

China is just friggin’ evil. That there is anyone ignorant enough to defend that government in any context is frightening.

Tens of millions already dead, hundreds of millions violently supressed… Has any other government murdered more of its own people than China? Ever?

The killing continues. The gulags continue.

Korea was once part of China. Vietnam was ruled by China for centuries. Who’s next? Perhaps a better question would be, “Who isn’t next?”


#19

Blue Team conspiring with the Green Terror?

quote:
How many Americans know for example, that Lee Teng-hui is the prime suspect in the cold-blooded execution/murder of Captain Yin Ching-feng, an ROC Navy whistle blower? That's right, none other than Newsweek's cover boy of 1996, "Mr. Democracy" himself. A murder suspect.
quote[quote] Third, the Blue Team is not defending Taiwan's "democracy," it is expanding America's empire by violating China's sovereignty. [/quote]

#20

“A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”

  • Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)