http://news.yahoo.com/28-terrorist-group-members-shot-dead-chinas-xinjiang-041118375.html You will notice China has not really ever done anything in the middle east yet the Islamists still attack them and kill Chinese hostages. The folks who claim Islamists are just reacting to what other people are doing are just wrong.
For years China has been slipping non-Islamic messages into their fortune cookies. To us "You will enjoy peace and happiness" seems innocuous enough, but it omits "inshallah", which is a slap in the face to all Muslims and a rejection of the words of Allah and his divine Prophet. So all Chinese have to die in fire. Plus the pork egg rolls are haram.
I generally wait until I'm completely finished before I enjoy some "me" time. But hey, that's what maturity and wisdom do for you.
The first paragraph of your own article: If you've never head of Xinjiang, look it up and you might be able to start your long journey to getting a clue.
Yeah, pretty much every group of people in the entire world is committing atrocities against Muslims. Chinese, Hindus, Sikhs, anamists, Polynesians, Russians, Ukranians, Jews, Zorastrians, Yazidis, Orthodox Christians, Catholics, Chaldeans, Copts, Druze, atheists, secularists, conservatives, liberals, socialists, Norwegians, Danes, Fins, Italians, Serbs, Spaniards, Germans, French, Tibetans, Australians, Filipinos, every single tribe in Africa, and Icelanders. The only people who aren't committing genocidal atrocities against Muslims are Greenlanders and a small tribe in the Brazilian rain forest who Muslims haven't yet found out about.
Wow, do you really assume everyone is as stupid as you? We have had multiple threads on this topic in the past, yes, there are some seporatists and then there are also some Taliban inspired just plain old terrorists which gives the CCP their excuse to crush them all. Hell, just last week ISIS executed a Chinese hostage.
As with most things, it's only part of the story. Meddling in the ME does inflame, but it's not the only issue. As for China, you need to think bigger picture. They are very much meddling with domestic moslem populations in central Asia.
I assume you are stupid because you constantly post stupid things like making a claim about the middle east and 'backing it up' with an article about Xinjiang.
I've spotted a few posts regarding civilian casualties in situations like this, and it's really not as back and white as many think. I mean, I think we can all agree that there is a difference between acceptable and unavoidable in such cases, and the former never is. And there's also rewarding unacceptable behaviour (human shields) and prolonging a conflict, which in reality is going to lead to more civilian deaths. And for what? Your moral rectitude? Sorry, but your clean consciousness shouldn't be a consideration, least harm should be. As an example, lets take a basic view. Let's call out experiment planet 'Bob.' Planet Bob has a 100 terrorist groups, and annually they kill 50 people each leading to average death toll of 5000. No one is too happy about this, but annually they're also beaten back. One year, a group decides to play things differently, they infiltrate a town of 1000, and start executing 10 people a day, and have plans to infiltrate other towns and repeat the process. Now the government has two options, they can either destroy the town, thus leading to the death of all 1000 citizens, or they can undergo a war of attrition trying to take out the infiltrators in the knowledge that, even if the targetted attacks don't kill any bystanders, they stand to lose the town in a 100 days anyway. Now Planet Bob is a bit weird, so it splits into two Bobs at this point, one where the town was destroyed, one where it wasn't. In the one where it was destroyed, things go back to how they were, the government was voted out after killing those citizens, but it's back to it's average 5000 deaths a year from the 100 groups until someone has another bright idea. In the one there there was a war of attrition, and a quarter of the town was killed, not only has that group repeated it's infiltration tactics, but the other 99 groups have repeated its template and expanded it. Each one now infiltrates three villages and the average deaths annually is now 75000 from the groups. So, which one was the better solution? This isn't meant to be a direct parallel (after all there are multiple governments and it's whole lot messier politically in the real world), but illustrative that just parroting "killing bystanders is bad m'kay" isn't that simple.
Oh, and another thing I've spotted a lot of - "terrorists are made" - which is bollocks. Situations can certainly lead you down dark paths, but at the end there is still a choice. Plenty of people from deprived backgrounds have gone on to do something other than join a gang or a terrorist groups. It's not an inevitable path. When some prick banker decides to diddle people out of millions, no one goes "poor widdle banker, only had the one porsche", you recognise they were a prick, so why do so many find this difficult to apply across the various social and economic strata? If you think "y'know, if I lived like that I'd be a terrorist" guess what? You're a prick, and the only thing living in better conditions has done for you is stop you being a murderous prick. I'm all for getting people out of shitty lives, but don't ever use it as justification for someone going bad.
Causation is not justification. Knowing that people are more likely to turn to violence when they're desperate doesn't excuse their violence, but it is useful if you want to know how to reduce violence. Of course, when you have an innocent man whose kids get blown up in an air raid and who then spends six years in Gitmo for no reason being told that he could follow a call to arms to stop that injustice in the future, it gets difficult to assign blame in the first place.
Ok, now you are just a liar. Complete and total liar. Xinjiang was brought up as an example of a non westerner place where muslims were still attacking despite your claim that Islamic extremists only exist because of western foreign policy. I guess this explains why you have such difficulties. You are unable to read and comprehend simple sentences and then fabricate stories to fill your mental gaps. Either that or you are just a compulsive liar. You certainly have the habit of drawing conclusions that are the exact opposite of what people wrote. I even highlighted it in your first quote, liar boy.
This is true but when you find the terrorists reaching back 800 years to the Crusades in an attempt to justify their actions in attacking countries which didn't even exist at the time of the crusades then you know the claims at causation are bogus. Yes, the west's policies can effect things at the margins and get a few fence sitters to join the fight or some wavering jihadists to sit back down but it has never nor will ever be the primary motivator for such groups.
Well you've got to consider that by and large Muslims themselves did not bitch and moan much about "the crusades" until the early 20th century when nationalism became a huge motivating force around the world. Likewise, they did not start idolizing Saladin until around the same time. After all, he was just a "filthy Kurd"
I don't see anybody saying that. What some of us are saying is that pricks can become more likely to act on their impulses if given a reason. Further, you don't need to be a prick in the first place to become radicalized by the death of a bunch of people at your sister's wedding.
By that logic, Bush quoting the crusades in his response to 9/11 would mean that citing 9/11 as a motivator for Western reactions to terrorism would be equally bogus. Cultural movements do not have single causes, and they almost always cite additional causes that are not otherwise represented in the historical situation in which they emerge.
This is an extremely important point. If you want to play the "which century are they living in?" game, then the correct answer for most of the Muslim extremism going on now is "19th/20th century nationalism".
Actually the Muslims were getting better from Western colonialism until WW-I. They had realized how backwards their societies were and were adopting some Western norms and institutions. Egypt spent a lot of time under British rule, as did Pakistan. Even in the Ottoman empire, Ataturk brought about many Western reforms. But Western values fundamentally conflict with Islam, and that caused friction. The horrors of WW-I convinced large numbers of Muslims that the Prophet was right all along, and that the West is the domain of war, full of sin and butchery. So the Islamists started pushing back against the reformers. In the slow, simmering chaos or trying to reconcile the irreconcilable, some groups turned to communism, which like Islam rejected many Western institutions, especially colonialism. Overall, the result is a hot mess.
A tweet from Huffpo that will go down in history. Then they said "We apologize for the original image here. Zayn Malik is mentioned in the story, but is obviously not part of ISIS." Iowahawk noted: "apologizing for calling boy bands terrorists is exactly what ISIS wants"
Islamists killed three more Chinese in Mali the other day. China has not invaded anyone or forced it's values on anyone yet for some reason the Islamists still kill Chinese. Can we just drop the lie that Islamists only exist as a reaction to something the evil white people have done? This claim is as wrong as it is insulting (which is to say very).
Are you referring to the hostage taking? Because in that case, the terrorists stormed the hotel and took whoever was there hostage. It wasn't so much an attack on the Chinese, so much as it was an attack on a hotel expected to be full of foreigners.
And yet the released all of the muslims who could quote verses of the Koran so, no, they did not just kill everyone. So, yes, they did really target everyone but muslims.
Okay, and..... Oh wait, is this your thesis statement today? Because I'm not sure who's actually saying that here. Is it Tererun? Because you know how seriously you should be taking Tererun.
No, multiple people have claimed the Islamists are only a reaction to things the west has done. It is not. The west could go completely isolationist and yet the Islamists would continue their attacks on nonmuslims because the desire to kill, convert, or conquer for their religion is their primary motivation.
The evidence is the entirety of Islamic history. When Muhammed went to Medina, Muslims hadn't been attacked by: *insert list of every country in the Middle East, Mediterranean, southern Europe, north Africa, and central and south central Asia.* It didn't matter. They were all attacked and conquered.
