I'd be cautious about accepting this without independent confirmation. The Chinese government may simply be trying to create an excuse to crack down on the Uighurs, or on other dissidents.

Posted by: sceptico at March 9, 2008 12:50 PM

Well, no one conducts a crack down any better than the Chinese. Those dozen or so ETIM members better look out, they are slightly outnumbered...

Posted by: duh_swami at March 9, 2008 1:00 PM

China is an enemy that Islam doesn't need.

Posted by: Hugh at March 9, 2008 1:11 PM

China is a major supplier of arms to the Sudanese government, of Darfur and South Sudan massacre infamy. China is also an arms and tech supplier to Syria and Iran. Thus, while Chine, like Russia, ruthlessly suppresses Islamic movements close to home, it enables the worst ones farther away. It's just blood for oil. Boycott Beijing!

Posted by: jewdog at March 9, 2008 1:14 PM

Needlesss to say that these things happen because of the conflict in the Middle East, and because of the oppression of the "Palestinian people":

Posted by: Crusader at March 9, 2008 1:50 PM

As far as supplying arms to Jihad forces, the U.S. stands second to none with all kinds of arms to the Palis and pledges to the Saudis. Unfortunately, it will take more blood and a realization the that Islamic Jihadists won't go away easily. This the U.s. Europe, Russia and China will soon realize along with the fact that they are really allies in World war III.

Posted by: Briars at March 9, 2008 1:50 PM

China cares ONLY about money. Not their own people, no one else, ONLY MONEY. They don't care who they get into bed with to get it. They'd better get wise to islam fast. That scorpion packs a nasty bite in that jacket.

I don't buy anything Chinese if I can possibly help it.

Posted by: j_not_a at March 9, 2008 2:37 PM

OT

A few choice words from Pat Condell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9dXGJ2rYdA

Posted by: km at March 9, 2008 2:49 PM

If any of you have doubts on who is the good guy in this conflict (China vs. Islamic Uighurs), always pick the one who has done more for civilization...

It is an easy choice!

Gooooooo China! Kick Islamic Holy Warrior Uighur Ass!

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 9, 2008 3:56 PM

Sceptico:

I'd be cautious about your caution. Yes ... but ... are the Uighurs immune somehow to the chauvinist and supremacist psychoses that affect other Muslims?

Somewhere I've read about a Uighur insurgency against China in the past. It's good to be wary in dealing with China, but the Religion of Peace has only itself to blame for generating its own public perception problem: its so widely implicated in violence and mayhem that no one trusts it even when it probably isn't up to any harm.

The vicarious suffering of the innocent? We'll see. I need proof before I can become a believer. Meanwhile, "Where there's smoke, there's fire". Islam needs to be put on the defensive everywhere, just like communism recently was, so that it too can be rolled back.

Posted by: templar at March 9, 2008 4:00 PM

j_not_a

"China cares ONLY about money. They don't care who they get into bed with to get it."

You mean like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan! Oh man...oh wait...never mind.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/images/20020425-4-515h.html

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 9, 2008 4:03 PM

GreatComet - In this particular article, China was the country being discussed.

China poisons its own people deliberately with tainted food, exports toxic, counterfeit and dangerous chemicals and other products for human and animal ingestion and use, operates illegal mines that kill thousands of their workers every year, makes their workers work on the worst kind of unsafe construction projects, routinelty tortures and kills thousands of political and religious dissidents every year. I could go on and on. On a scale of callousness of a government to its people, China is, to me anyway, especially heinous.

Posted by: j_not_a at March 9, 2008 6:12 PM

Good one Great Comet!

---

I'd be cautious about accepting this without independent confirmation. The Chinese government may simply be trying to create an excuse to crack down on the Uighurs, or on other dissidents.
Posted by: sceptico

Sceptico, do you work for the State Department?

I still don't understand why we support the islamic republic of KKKosovo. We are alienating Russia whom we have already f•cked with plenty over Afghanistan and more recently we've interfered with their handling of Chechnya, which plainly put is none of our business.

We have also interfered with how the Chinese handle their moslem problem.

And the islamos have really shown their gratitude for all this, haven't they?

I say we have a closed-door conference with Russia, China and India and we have an open and honest discussion. All of us have the moslem problem in common and we should form a united front against it.

The outcome could be something like this: No more interference in the internal affairs of China and Russia re. their moslem insurgency. In fact, we should co-operate a lot more and share information.

Rendition of terrorists to China for special interrogations would yield fantastic results, I am certain of that.

Then we make a deal with Russia and we help restore Serbia and that includes Kosovo. Moslems are expelled from Serbia to Albania.

See also under the Benes Decree which Hugh has mentioned many times.

The similarities to the Sudeten situation is obvious. Serbia has Historic Precedent on her side. The secessionist moslems in Kosovo have created the grounds for their own expulsion.

In return we now get help from Russia re. iran. You see it's give and take here.

Besides, both steps are actually doing the right things instead of trying to stick one another in the eye while the moslems benefit under the radar.

We take China to task re. Sudan. The country is split up and the South can market their oil to China and noone loses anything..

Then we take care of India's concern re. Kashmir. Either the Paks leave peacefully of they face the united might of all these four Nations.

Pak should also get a clear ultimatum re. their nukes. De-nuke or else.

Then we put SOWdi Barbaria on notice. They either stop madrastasizing.. yes metastasizing islam.. or their holdings in our countries will be nationalized.

There is precendent for that as well. Plenty of German companies were nationalized right here in the USA. So this is by no means a first.

If we could form such a "Fab Four Front" against islam the Euro-quislings can simply go to hell with all their whining about "human rights" and all their hypocritical garrrbahhge.

They need to be reminded of Human Rights for Israelis and their native European populations.

They need to be reminded that they are creating an EU Super-state with an unelected government.

So much for "human rights".

No more lectures from the Euro-weenies.

Et toi, Sarko?

Posted by: Allah Schmallah at March 9, 2008 6:27 PM

Posted by Allah Schmallah: I still don't understand why we support the islamic republic of KKKosovo. We are alienating Russia whom we have already f•cked with plenty over Afghanistan

Too right. It is a wonder that Russia has decided not to arm the Taleban, just as payback for what we did to them in that benighted country

As for the Uighurs, they are already a minority. With Chinese policy of suppression, that includes taking Moslem girls away from their parents and sending them to work in factories hundreds of miles away, the demographic Jihad that we face is just not going to work with the Chinese.

Posted by: DP111 at March 9, 2008 7:08 PM

Allah Schmallah,

Your proposals sounds like the perfect solution. Now to whom can we present this plan? Hillary Rodham Clinton? Barack Hussein Obama? Or John McCain?

As it stands now, one of these three will be in charge of foreign policy for the next four years, after Bush and his Saudi-placating policy leaves.

Of course, we have the Arabists in State that apparently never change, no matter who is president.

What we need are Changes (plural), but whom can we trust to effect these? The "Change" man? Hillary? Or McCain who was not adverse to appearing with George W. (hinting that he will continue some or most of the Bush policies)?

Posted by: unicorns62000 at March 9, 2008 7:33 PM

Allah Schmallah

"I say we have a closed-door conference with Russia, China and India and we have an open and honest discussion. All of us have the moslem problem in common and we should form a united front against it."

We can for once all agree on something together, yet even this simple task is beyond the reach for most of our leadership.

As an American, my one problem is this: Why do go out of our way to offend the Russians and yet we do everything in our power to not offend the Islamic world?

I prefer to side with the Russians, the Chinese, the Serbs, the African Sudanese, hell even space aliens from the Planet X, before I would ever side with Islamist. Islam in my opinion is one step removed from the religion of Aztecs, who had human sacrifice.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 9, 2008 9:23 PM

From the AP article:
"Nur Bekri did not specifically label the incident a terrorist act, saying it remained under investigation."

Does not referring to the incident as a 'terrorist' incident make it no so?

From the Reuters article I sent Jihadwatch but has not been uploaded:
"The official Xinhua news agency said authorities 'foiled a planned terrorist attack.'"

Full article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080309/wl_nm/china_plane_dc

China foils attempted terror attack on flight

BEIJING (Reuters) - China has foiled an attempt to crash a passenger jet en route to Beijing and the aircraft made a safe emergency landing, a senior official said on Sunday, in what state media called an attempted terrorist attack.

The China Southern flight originated in Urumqi, capital of the restive far western Chinese region of Xinjiang, where militant Uighurs have agitated for an independent "East Turkestan."

It landed in the northwestern city from Lanzhou on Friday after the crew discovered and foiled the attempt to "cause an air disaster," Xinjiang Governor Nuer Baikeli told reporters on the sidelines of the annual session of parliament.

"Who the people involved in the incident were, where they were from, what their aim was and what their background was, we are now investigating," he said.

The official Xinhua news agency said authorities "foiled a planned terrorist attack."

"Fortunately our air crew took resolute measures, discovered and put a stop to this action promptly. All the passengers, crew and the aircraft are safe," the governor said, adding the flight finally arrived in Beijing on Saturday.

A source with knowledge of the incident told Reuters that at least two passengers on flight CZ6901 have been taken into custody for questioning.

The source, who requested anonymity, said inflammable material was found in the plane's toilet.

Repeated calls to the spokesman's office of China Southern went unanswered.

Xinjiang is home to 8 million Muslim Uighurs, many of whom resent the growing presence and economic grip of Han Chinese. The oil-rich region borders Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia.

A senior Chinese official has warned that Uighurs -- a Turkic, largely Islamic people who share linguistic and cultural bonds with Central Asia -- were plotting attacks on the Beijing Olympics.

China has said its police had shot dead two members of a "terrorist gang" and rounded up 15 others in a raid in January in Xinjiang.

Xinjiang's Communist Party boss Wang Lequan said that the group's aim had been to attack the Olympics.

"Their aim was very clear, which was to damage the Beijing Olympics," Wang told reporters.

In January 2007, Chinese forces killed 18 people described as terrorists in a gunbattle in Xinjiang. One policeman was killed and another wounded in the raid on a training camp in the mountains of the Pamirs plateau in southern Xinjiang.

The Xinjiang governor, himself an ethnic Uighur, said only a "very small number of people" in the region support the separatists.

"They don't represent the Uighur people," he added. President Hu Jintao met the Xinjiang delegation on Saturday and called for greater efforts to ensure social stability and ethnic harmony, Xinhua said.

Posted by: dlp at March 10, 2008 12:39 AM

Though I would be wary about labelling a Uighur separatist movement as 'jihadist'. Yes, they are Muslims but when we talk of jihadists are we differenciating between those that wage holy war for the re-establishment of a caliphate and those than are Muslim-in-culture but think more in terms of estbalishing a separate state? This issue is important for it affects how we think of these struggles and what we ought to do to deal with them. Not all Chechen militants were jihadists but they were all separatists. Can we admit of some slackness when we are applying the word 'jihadist'? Can we develop some rigour here?

Posted by: dlp at March 10, 2008 12:48 AM

As an American, my one problem is this: Why do go out of our way to offend the Russians and yet we do everything in our power to not offend the Islamic world?

I prefer to side with the Russians, the Chinese, the Serbs, the African Sudanese, hell even space aliens from the Planet X, before I would ever side with Islamist. Islam in my opinion is one step removed from the religion of Aztecs, who had human sacrifice.

Posted by: greatcometof1577

Yes, why *DO* we obsess against the Russians when that potential threat has long subsided? At least the Russians can be considered level-headed to the same degree that we are. And I will go so far and include China and non-moslem India in this.

It is absurd that we kiss SOWdi behind when Russia has not only more oil than they do but also a wealth of other resources and potential investment and other business opportunities.

Besides that, I do think the Russians are sane. They are able to think logically.

I can think logically. And what we have done to the Russians has to REALLY piss them OFF. I know it would do it for me. Kosovo being but the most recent slap across the face.

And for what I ask? For what?

For what end do we allow moslems to move into a sovereign state and then break off a piece of that state and start their own islamic republic?

Not only does this do absolutely nothing to advance America's interests. It also sets a horrible precedent.

The one good think is that now the Dutch-speaking Belgians can now use this precedent to secede from the proto-communist Francophone islamic republic of Belgium.

Which might just be the beginning of the end for the EU. The whole damn thing unraveling from within.. And that is something that a majority in all EU countries are secretly yearning for.

If two nations cannot co-exist in Belgium then how can more than 20 nations be expected to co-exist under the rule of the unelected EUrocrats?

But I digress.. I am glad that others see things in the same light. it's so simple and logical really.

Why should the four most powerful nations in the world continue to allow the islamos to play us against one another?

For what?

Posted by: Allah Schmallah at March 10, 2008 1:22 AM

China is an enemy that Islam doesn't need.
Posted by: Hugh

Yet, if China was made an enemy by Islam, that would be such a relief. As far as the Uygar campaign goes, those movements are al-Qaeda allied and based in Pakistan, which is China's main ally against India. Imagine a terror attack on the Beijing Olympics actually coming off, and China tracing it to Pakistan. It would be funny to watch their reaction, particularly given China's past support to Pakistan's nuke program (via Pyongyang)

In fact, imagine China getting riled to the point that they overrun a whole extent of Islamic territory and do what they've done in Xinxiang, and populate those places with Han Chinese. That would be a hoot.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 10, 2008 1:36 AM

“Yet, if China was made an enemy by Islam, that would be such a relief. As far as the Uygar campaign goes, those movements are al-Qaeda allied and based in Pakistan, which is China's main ally against India. Imagine a terror attack on the Beijing Olympics actually coming off, and China tracing it to Pakistan. It would be funny to watch their reaction, particularly given China's past support to Pakistan's nuke program (via Pyongyang)
In fact, imagine China getting riled to the point that they overrun a whole extent of Islamic territory and do what they've done in Xinxiang, and populate those places with Han Chinese. That would be a hoot.”
Infidel Pride

You, as a regular Jihadwatcher, ought to be able to provide a better contribution than this. You make the ridiculous leap of tagging the Uighur separatist movement via al-Qaeda (AQ) to Pakistan to drum up the notion that China might actually invade Pakistan? For what? So that you can have a laugh? Are you serious?

Please present the evidence that the Uighur movement is linked to AQ. Without conflating the entire movement it would be great if you could distinguish those Uighurs that are for the caliphate (though those for an emirate will do), and those that are for an independent and democratic East Turkestan (a sovereign state). Great for us, those of us that are attracted to the theory that in each local theatre involving Muslims ‘struggling’ there is an underlying and significant desire for a global caliphate, if you can. What are the links, for example, in terms of funding, shared members, activities etc, between Uighur movements and AQ?

The Council on Foreign Relations website suggests that whilst there have been Uighurs that have joined AQ and the Taliban, “some China specialists doubt that the ETIM currently has significant ties to bin Laden’s network”. From the CFR website:

Does the ETIM have ties to al-Qaeda?

U.S. and Chinese officials say it does, but some experts are less sure. The State Department reports that the ETIM [East Turkestan Independence Movement – hardly a moniker for global jihad] has a “close financial relationship” with Osama bin Laden’s terror network. U.S. officials are said to have gathered information about Uighur militants linked to al-Qaeda from a handful of Uighurs captured in Afghanistan and now detained at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba . In January 2002, a Chinese government study reported that the ETIM has received money, weapons, and support from al-Qaeda. According to the report, some ETIM militants were trained by al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, crossed back into Xinjiang, and set up terrorist cells there. But while experts agree that hundreds of Uighurs left China to join al-Qaeda and its Taliban hosts in Afghanistan, some China specialists doubt that the ETIM currently has significant ties to bin Laden’s network. Beijing has a long history of falsifying data, they say, and since September 11, the Chinese have repeatedly tried to paint their own campaign against Uighur separatists in Xinjiang as a flank of the U.S.-led war on terrorism—and to get America to drop its long-standing protests over Chinese human rights abuses in its crackdowns in Xinjiang. ETIM leader Hahsan Mahsum, one of China’s most-wanted men, has denied any ties between his group and al-Qaeda.

Posted by: dlp at March 10, 2008 3:06 AM

You make the ridiculous leap of tagging the Uighur separatist movement via al-Qaeda (AQ) to Pakistan to drum up the notion that China might actually invade Pakistan? For what? So that you can have a laugh? Are you serious? Please present the evidence that the Uighur movement is linked to AQ.

I'm not the one making this leap. In recent years, Uygar separatists have been working with al Qaeda and Taliban in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. In fact, make that Uygar, as well as Uzbek jihadis training to overthrow governments in Central Asia - Tajikistan, as you may know, had been plagued by civil war.

Yeah, I am realistic enough to note that China will not invade Pakistan - Beijing puts a huge premium on Pakistan due to the geopolitical leverage they get against India, as well as the oil that they get from OPEC as a result of being pro-Islam. Not to mention that they also are buying from our sources, such as Russia, Canada and Venezuela.

You want evidence? Read the second sentence of the article here, which states that 'The founder and leader of the [East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM] was Hasan Mahsum, who was shot and killed by the Pakistani Army on October 2, 2003.' Why would a group, even an Islamic group that's engaging in a separatist campaign against China, move to Pakistan (as opposed to neighboring Kyrgyzstan or Kazakhstan) unless it had al Qaeda links?

As for the distinction that you draw between the EITM and the East Turkestan independence movement, the latter has its mix of Kemalist, ethnic Turkic and Islamic groups:

In general, the wide variety of groups who seek independence for Xinjiang can be distinguished by the type of government they advocate and the role they believe an independent Xinjiang should play in international affairs. Groups who use the term East Turkestan tend to have an orientation towards western Asia, the Islamic world, and Russia. These groups can be further subdivided into those who desire secularity, and identify with the struggle of secular Kemal Atatürk in Turkey, versus those who want an Islamic theocracy and identify with Saudi Arabia, the former Taliban government in Afghanistan, or Iran. In many cases the latter diminish the importance or deny the existence of a separate Uyghur ethnicity and claim a larger Turanian or Islamic identity. These groups tend to see an independent East Turkestan in which non-Turkic, and especially non-Islamic minorities, such as the Han Chinese would play no significant role.

Those that use the term Uyghuristan tend to envision a state for the Uyghur people. Those groups that adopt this terminology tended to be allied with the former Soviet Union while it still existed. Since then some of the leaders of these groups have remained in Russia, Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan, or have emigrated to Europe and North America. It is worth noting that none of these identities are exclusive. Some groups support more than one such orientation. It is common to support both an Islamic and Turkic orientation for Xinjiang. The founders of the Turkic Islamic Republic of East Turkestan (also known as the East Turkestan Republic) are a good example of this.

You probably know that 'Turkistan' is the name given to the entire region east of the Caspian Sea until Xinxiang and Gansu provinces in China, which have an ethnic Turkic population. The Turks first got a separate ethnic identity distinct from the Chinese and Mongols in the 9th century, when they Islamized: otherwise, that region in Central Asia was known as Turan. There is no country called Turkistan, so why don't these 'freedom-seekers' just call their country that? The 'East' in this name refers to the fact that they consider themselves a part of a greater pan-Turkic empire, and that their long term goals include designs on Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan.

I don't normally sympathize with the Chinese - for instance, I support Tibet's independence. However, I see Xinxiang almost identical to Kosovo and Chechnya - an independence for them could end up in the creation of a Jihadi state. As it is, the former Soviet republics have only managed to be non Jihadi due to repressive anti-Islamic regimes, like in Tashkent, or in the case of Kazakhstan, an almost 50% Russian population. If Xinxiang became independent i.e. Islamic, and the Han Chinese had to leave, you'd have another Pakistan like country in a huge portion of the heart of Asia, and a potential magnet to overthrow not just other Central Asian regimes, but a new training station separate from Afghanistan or Pakistan, which will be totally inaccessable to US troops without acquiescence from Russia or China. And given that it would have been US support that would potentially create such a country (a la Kosovo), why would one expect either Beijing or Moscow to play along? After all, the Kremlin tried that in 2001 when they supported US forwarding bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, which were later shut down due to US support for democracy i.e. Jihadi activity in Uzbekistan.

So sorry, Xinxiang and the Hui Chinese is the one case where I support Chinese belligerance.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 10, 2008 4:33 AM

Infidel Pride, thanks for your more considered post. I also do not underestimate the possibility of a real danger in China of jihadists and the risk of a jihadist movement emerging, but I still like to see more solid evidence. That a leader of ETIM was shot by Pakistanis does not constitute verification of the links, for example, in terms of funding, shared members, activities etc, between Uighur movements and AQ. It is not that I entirely doubt that the links existed or exist. But we should not stop pressing for greater evidence, especially if we are reliant on Chinese ‘reports’ which are never publicly presented and from which details lack. Since the stronger the data we have in our hands the stronger the evidence we can use in the face of our enemies and the better we can deal with the situation. I know from my limited 7 year experience of living in China and visiting Muslim areas, and knowing Uighur people that the majority of them hate the Chinese fiercely but they do not care for installing an emirate or a caliphate, or living under shari’a. Yes, that doesn't mean there aren't groups of Uighurs who wish for Islamic world domination, but I doubt this has catalysed into a 'movement' of any significance. It certainly hasn't hijacked the separatist movement. I still have to express doubt about the immediate and uncritical tendency to label any Muslim movement as jihadist without a thorough evaluation of the facts, which here seem to be a bit thin on the ground.

Posted by: dlp at March 10, 2008 6:02 AM

j_not_a wrote:

"China...operates illegal mines..."

Illegal to who? The UN? The United Mine Workers? Al Gore?

Posted by: Charles Bogle at March 10, 2008 10:03 AM

Charles: Coal mining is one of the most dangerous jobs in China, and China’s mines are the world’s most dangerous. Deaths in coal mines exceed all other industry-related deaths combined in China: around 6,000 workers are killed each year, approximately 17 deaths every day. These are illegal "to" Chinese law. They are unlicensed, unregistered, and unregulated by the Chinese Government. The problem is that although the Government periodically orders the closure of thousands of small mines, local governments, in collusion with mine owners, secretly tolerate these dangerous collieries, since the increased price of coal, and hence higher profit
margins, provides strong incentives for mine owners and colluding government officials to tolerate the risks.

I'm not sure what this has to do with jihad in China though.

Posted by: dlp at March 10, 2008 10:52 AM

dlp

You miss my point, which was that just because they are not Jihadis now doesn't mean that they won't be once they become independent and democratic. After all, nobody thought that Bosnia would end up as a state with Jihadi tendencies, and the same is more likely than not to come to pass in Kosovo, if it hasn't already. Do you think that an independent Xinxiang is more, or less likely to succumb to the Jihad than a Xinxiang whose Muslim population is heavily diluted by ethnic Han [Communist/Taoist/Buddhist/Confucian/Fulun Gong/ Christian] Chinese?

In the 80s, who would have thought that Central Asia, which was once thought of as an inseparable part of the USSR, would 20 years later be a potential hotbed of Jihadi activity?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 10, 2008 4:55 PM

infidel pride: So your main point is that with any Muslim country there is a risk that its people or government may at some point become radicalised to participate in the global jihad? This is pretty uncontroversial and different from claims about Xinjiang being a hotbed of jihadist activity.

You ask whether I “think that an independent Xinxiang [sic] is more, or less likely to succumb to the Jihad [assuming of course that it would be an Islamic state, however this is defined] than a Xinxiang [sic] whose Muslim population is heavily diluted by ethnic Han [Communist/Taoist/Buddhist/Confucian/Fulun Gong/ Christian] Chinese?” For an “independent” Islamic Xinjiang to come about it would mean purging the Han which make up around 50% of the population and own all the industries there. It’s not going to happen anytime soon. But the more general point you are making boils down to this. That a country with a Muslim majority is going to be more active in the jihad than a country with a Muslim minority. But is this so simple? We should not underestimate the power of the Muslim minority in Europe, the States and Australia. What’s different about the Muslim minorities in these countries and China is that China has control over them. They regulate and manage all mosques, though this is obviously a difficult task in a country so large.

Posted by: dlp at March 10, 2008 10:44 PM

dlp

Thanks for correcting my spelling of 'Xinjiang' - after all, phoentic Chinese spellings of erstwhile names like 'Sinkiang' is something all of us are fluent in. I don't recall stating that Xinjiang is itself a hotbed for jihadi activity - all I said was that the Uygars were among the peoples who had at least a part of their leadership influenced by al Qaeda. If I did convey that impression, I take that back.

You will get no argument from me that Muslim minorities in countries like UK, France, Germany, Australia, et al are lethal, and a threat to those countries. Where we seemingly part is your apparent contention that a Muslim majority country, particularly a democratic one, would be a non-candidate for a takeover by Jihad. The only such example I can think of is Kazakhstan, which is partly a dictatorship, and partly the Kazakh population is controlled by the presence of Russians, who are 47% of the population.

I think it's arguable on whether the Han Chinese in Xinjiang who have been settled there would be that sort of a repellant to that province going Islamic, should independence ever be attained. For one, unlike the Kazakhstan Russians, who are Christians, the Han Chinese here are either Communist Atheists or Agnostics - and the latter isn't a strong counterforce against Islamization the way another religion would be. Also, the only way Xinjiang (and Tibet) can ever be independent is if Beijing goes the way of Moscow in 1991, and if that happens, a lot of the Han Chinese, who were settled there by the Communists, are likely to flee, since they would be faced with a hostile Hui population. Given all this, I don't have good expectations from this place should it become independent. And as you will appreciate, the reason is Islam and only Islam: on Tibet/Xizang (did I spell this right?), I have a completely diametrically opposite stance, and support its independence, even if that means that moron Dalai Lama returning to power there.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 11, 2008 1:27 AM

dlp

You completely miss Charles Bogle's point.

People drive "illegal" cars in Alabama too.

Point is, the Chinese can make whatever internal laws they want and run mines how they see fit. I could care less. Maybe Bush should send in troops to protect the Chinese mine workers?

Posted by: MontyRockIV at March 11, 2008 1:55 AM

MontyRockIV: I beg to differ. The question re. Chinese mines was “illegal to who?”. I.e. under which laws are the mines illegal. I pointed out that they are illegal under Chinese law. The issue raised re. the lack of health and safety, and thus deaths, in these mines has a lot to do with them being illegal, though it is also to do with inadequacies in industrial health and safety regulations and their lack of rigorous enforcement. As I mentioned, local governments in cahoots with small mine operators tolerate them since they get kickbacks. The issue of Chinese law and its enforcement, if I may bring this back on topic, is that China is often lauded for its control of the Muslim situation. But we don’t yet know to what extent and how this is true: how much is it indirect through policy (e.g in the allocation of funding for public services, including education) and how much is it direct (e.g. to what extent does Chinese law and its enforcement affect Muslim populations and the containment of Islamic ideology.?) The regulation in China that all imams be registered as members of the Communist Party is an example of Chinese law – direct control - that is relevant. This sounds impressive as a control mechanism, but what does the lack of control over health and safety in mines, and the 6,000+ unnecessary deaths per year, say about the Chinese Government’s ability to enact though effective legislation? China’s image the world, especially in the run up to the Olympics, is crucial to the Government here. So its not as if the Chinese just care about ‘making money’. They also have face to worry about.

Infidel pride: I don’t think that “that a Muslim majority country, particularly a democratic one, would be a non-candidate for a takeover by Jihad”. Any Muslim country in theory is capable of jihadi takeover, but this is general beyond useful. I was pointing to the danger of assuming that this is inevitable, but this doesn’t mean that there won’t be jihadists. The question is what influence will they have over important resources – government, education, the military, the media, oil and the like? Are there any checks to their power? Xinjiang will never be granted independence from China. In the case that China collapses or fragments, I do not seeing the Han picking up their bags and leaving. They will still control the place politically and economically. Islamisation is not the problem in Xinjiang, it is actually, from the perspective of the Uighur, Sinification.

Posted by: dlp at March 11, 2008 4:15 AM

MontyRockIV: I beg to differ. The question re. Chinese mines was “illegal to who?”. I.e. under which laws are the mines illegal. I pointed out that they are illegal under Chinese law. The issue raised re. the lack of health and safety, and thus deaths, in these mines has a lot to do with them being illegal, though it is also to do with inadequacies in industrial health and safety regulations and their lack of rigorous enforcement. As I mentioned, local governments in cahoots with small mine operators tolerate them since they get kickbacks. The issue of Chinese law and its enforcement, if I may bring this back on topic, is that China is often lauded for its control of the Muslim situation. But we don’t yet know to what extent and how this is true: how much is it indirect through policy (e.g in the allocation of funding for public services, including education) and how much is it direct (e.g. to what extent does Chinese law and its enforcement affect Muslim populations and the containment of Islamic ideology.?) The regulation in China that all imams be registered as members of the Communist Party is an example of Chinese law – direct control - that is relevant. This sounds impressive as a control mechanism, but what does the lack of control over health and safety in mines, and the 6,000+ unnecessary deaths per year, say about the Chinese Government’s ability to enact though effective legislation? China’s image the world, especially in the run up to the Olympics, is crucial to the Government here. So its not as if the Chinese just care about ‘making money’. They also have face to worry about.

Infidel pride: I don’t think that “that a Muslim majority country, particularly a democratic one, would be a non-candidate for a takeover by Jihad”. Any Muslim country in theory is capable of jihadi takeover, but this is general beyond useful. I was pointing to the danger of assuming that this is inevitable, but this doesn’t mean that there won’t be jihadists. The question is what influence will they have over important resources – government, education, the military, the media, oil and the like? Are there any checks to their power? Xinjiang will never be granted independence from China. In the case that China collapses or fragments, I do not see the Han picking up their bags and leaving. They will still control the place politically and economically. Islamisation is not the problem in Xinjiang, it is actually, from the perspective of the Uighur, Sinification.

Posted by: dlp at March 11, 2008 4:16 AM

Oops sorry about double posting. Moderator - grateful if you can delete the first post.

Posted by: dlp at March 11, 2008 4:17 AM