Bin Laden in China?

[colfax]

just wondering if anyone has an opinion on the possibility of China harboring Bin Laden....I think it makes sense, OBL crossing into Pakistan from Tora Bora and heading north from there....certainly not unrealistic that a communist regime would try to play both sides of the terror game

 

Refuge of Osama Bin Laden in China Afghan border

 

There are rumors in the Kashgar market that China may have struck a deal with Osama. In exchange of safe refuge in Wakhan Corridore in China,

 

Al-Queda will never strike China. China categorically denies any such rumor.

 

Strategically it may be the ideal place of hiding because the American forces will definitely not venture into Chinese territory without advanced notice to China. Also, the terrain is worse than Afghanistan itself.

 

China has a sizable Islamic population in that area. The policy Beijing followed before nine eleven terrorism was to have a good relationship with Al-Queda and Talibans. In late 2001, the policy changed with Pakistan making a U-turn on relations with the Taliban and Al-Queda.

 

China is always very worried about Islamic and Jehadist insurgencies these areas. They used to work with Pakistan, Taliban and Al-Queda to keep their Muslim population happy. But now interestingly, the terror attacks in China are comparatively negligible while they are on rise in Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere. It cannot be true that all of a sudden the Chinese territory became so calm and quiet.

 

 

China should hand over Osama bin Laden

 

In private negotiations, it would not surprise this author if George Bush were threatening China. Bin Laden's head is something worth fighting over. In the context of the war on terror, there is only one right thing for China to do: Hand over bin Laden. The China Support Network objects to any concessions, or quid-pro-quo for China, because the U.S. China policy of appeasement is already ruinous enough, as it injures the U.S. economy and undermines national security. ...

 

No one can be happy at the thought of President Bush leaping into the arms of Hu Jintao, in a sweetheart deal that is undeserved by China. In other words, Bush as well as Hu is well advised to slow track a deal to the post-election period. When China works only in bad faith, what does a sweetheart deal do to our national security? There is no national security upside to appeasing Communist China.

 

For the China Support Network, we hereby demand that Hu Jintao hand over Osama bin Laden, after the election. The China Support Network is preparing to denounce any pre-election deal.

 

The third option mentioned above, to not conclude a deal, is really not an option at all. We now believe that China is harboring "public enemy # 1" of the United States. It would be easy to understand U.S. threats for a hot war; or for a Cold War with China. We rather hope that the U.S. is threatening a Cold War, which is the best China policy in any case, per CSN. In these negotiations, China should have nothing to gain, and everything to lose. The U.S. could afford that Cold War; China's regime, however, could not survive that Cold War. Chinese dissidents would shortly be running the new, Democratic China.

 

In the negotiations, we hope that George Bush uses no carrots, and only sticks. Strength with China was never more indicated, nor called for than now. At this time, we can and we should threaten that if we are not heeded, it will be "curtains for communists."

[Campy]

In private negotiations, it would not surprise this author if George Bush were threatening China. Bin Laden's head is something worth fighting over.

I guess the author forgot that the president said he no longer thinks about him?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

just wondering if anyone has an opinion on the possibility of China harboring Bin Laden....I think it makes sense, OBL crossing into Pakistan from Tora Bora and heading north from there....certainly not unrealistic that a communist regime would try to play both sides of the terror game

 

Refuge of Osama Bin Laden in China Afghan border

China should hand over Osama bin Laden

293372[/snapback]

 

Wouldn't suprise me. The Chinese have long sought to knock us off the top of the heap. They ARE Communists after all and you can not trust a Communist.

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

Wouldn't suprise me. The Chinese have long sought to knock us off the top of the heap. They ARE Communists after all and you can not trust a Communist.

293387[/snapback]

 

AND, they are trying to get better at basketball. And Osama really is tall.

[Gene Frenkle]

I guess the author forgot that the president said he no longer thinks about him?

293382[/snapback]

Remember when we were going to catch him by Christmas and then New Years...that was AWESOME!!!

http://www.borrull.org/e/noticia.php?id=27...a5b9295bbb1ffe0

 

How nice that the prez no longer thinks about the man who started all of this crap.

http://freepressinternational.com/bush2002.wmv

[Alaska Darin]

Remember when we were going to catch him by Christmas and then New Years...that was AWESOME!!!

http://www.borrull.org/e/noticia.php?id=27...a5b9295bbb1ffe0

 

How nice that the prez no longer thinks about the man who started all of this crap.

http://freepressinternational.com/bush2002.wmv

294447[/snapback]

Yeah, there was no terrorism before Bin Laden or Al Qaeda.

[Britbillsfan]

I think it makes no sense that the Chinese could be hiding bin Laden.

 

The Chinese have an aggressive policy of trying to wipe out anything that may form a basis of dissent to The Party (Islam, Christianity, Fulan Gong, democracy movement), and Islam is attacked probably worse than the other perceived threats since 9/11 (the activities of the Chinese in Moslem areas is diabolical). For al Qaeda to put its trust in the one regime in the world that is the most aggressive in its attempts to wipe out Islam within its borders makes no sense. Chinese policy in this regard has remained unchanged since the days of the Cultural Revolution (although the tactics used have altered) when dealing with perceived dissent.

 

Also, in the grand scheme of things, al Qaeda itself is little more than an irritant on the world scene. It is a diverse grouping of extremists with little active support anywhere (although it is tolerated in some places) and whilst they do pose a danger and can cause carnage they are not that much of a threat to the stability of the west. The Chinese leadership has taken a longer term view in their policies and need western expertise to help them become a legitimate power on the global stage, to put this relationship at risk by hiding a deranged madman with no real power would be bizarre as there is nothing tangible to gain but an awful lot that could be lost.

 

Neither of the articles quoted would be a great source IMO when it comes to China, India considers itself China's great regional rival and there is a lot of hatred towards China dating back to the 1962 war (and later border clashes) so an Indian source is not unbiased. The other piece is from a group specifically against the Chinese regime (something to applaud) and who's editorial stance is somewhat suspect.

 

A lot of major AQ players have been caught/killed in Pakistan, and there is fairly high level of support there for them in some places (tribal areas and fanatics created by Zia-ul-Haq's dealings with the fundamentalists) so he is more likely to be there amongst fiercely loyal and heavily armed allies than in the dubious safety provided by the atheistic Chinese pseudo-communist government.

[Pete]

I think it makes no sense that the Chinese could be hiding bin Laden.

 

The Chinese have an aggressive policy of trying to wipe out anything that may form a basis of dissent to The Party (Islam, Christianity, Fulan Gong, democracy movement), and Islam is attacked probably worse than the other perceived threats since 9/11 (the activities of the Chinese in Moslem areas is diabolical). For al Qaeda to put its trust in the one regime in the world that is the most aggressive in its attempts to wipe out Islam within its borders makes no sense. Chinese policy in this regard has remained unchanged since the days of the Cultural Revolution (although the tactics used have altered) when dealing with perceived dissent.

 

Also, in the grand scheme of things, al Qaeda itself is little more than an irritant on the world scene. It is a diverse grouping of extremists with little active support anywhere (although it is tolerated in some places) and whilst they do pose a danger and can cause carnage they are not that much of a threat to the stability of the west. The Chinese leadership has taken a longer term view in their policies and need western expertise to help them become a legitimate power on the global stage, to put this relationship at risk by hiding a deranged madman with no real power would be bizarre as there is nothing tangible to gain but an awful lot that could be lost.

 

Neither of the articles quoted would be a great source IMO when it comes to China, India considers itself China's great regional rival and there is a lot of hatred towards China dating back to the 1962 war (and later border clashes) so an Indian source is not unbiased. The other piece is from a group specifically against the Chinese regime (something to applaud) and who's editorial stance is somewhat suspect.

 

A lot of major AQ players have been caught/killed in Pakistan, and there is fairly high level of support there for them in some places (tribal areas and fanatics created by Zia-ul-Haq's dealings with the fundamentalists) so he is more likely to be there amongst fiercely loyal and heavily armed allies than in the dubious safety provided by the atheistic Chinese pseudo-communist government.

294526[/snapback]

good post- very well said!

[colfax]

thanks Brit, this is the kind of reply I was hoping for....and I was waiting for someone to call me on using an Indian publication as source

 

your reasoning is exactly what I had in mind when 'October surprise' conspiracy theorists started tossing around a Bin Laden China pact months ago...then I started digging more

 

 

China forced to expand role in Central Asia

 

International Eurasian Institute for Economic and Political Research

Ahmed Rashid    "Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst"

7/19/00

 

Uyghur militants from Xinjiang, China are increasingly using Afghanistan as a sanctuary, a supply base for training and weapons, and a means to fund their movement back home through the lucrative opium trade. Heroin addiction is now a major social problem in Xinjiang. Although the Taliban are not directly recruiting Uyghurs into their forces, Uyghur militants have enlisted with and get support from the foreign Islamic units fighting for the Taliban. These units include the 800 man Arab brigade led by Osama Bin Laden, units of Pakistani student militants, and the 2,000 man force of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan led by Juma Namangani now based in northern Afghanistan.

 

IMPLICATIONS: China with its long-standing communist policies towards ethnic minorities and religion, is primarily concerned with Uyghur Islamism and separatism, but wants to avoid a confrontation with the wider Muslim world. Significantly Jiang Zemin warned that the use of military force in Afghanistan "is not a solution", thereby rebutting Russia's June threat to bomb Taliban camps northern Afghanistan. Jiang Zemin stressed that the United Nations must be given full support to persuade the Afghan factions to form a coalition government. Unlike Russia and the Central Asian leaders, China sees the Taliban as a reality that has to be moderated and contained.

 

could China be in league with Bin Laden to 'avoid a confrontation with the wider Muslim world'?....would they now view AQ/OBL, like the Taliban is described here, 'as a reality that has to be moderated and contained' in order to stabilize her own western province?

 

I also agree that it would seem China has much more to lose than gain by being in league with AQ/OBL/Taliban - but, then, oil is a very powerful motivator

 

China's Drive For Oil Affects Militants

 

Franz Schurmann,Pacific News Service

3/18/05

 

SAN FRANCISCO--Before the end of this month, Chinese prime minister Wen Jiabao will have gone to the once sleepy Pakistani fishing village of Gwadar, not far from the Iranian border. He will inaugurate one of the biggest energy projects in the world.

 

Gwadar is not far from areas in Pakistan where Al Qaeda activities have been on the rise. Already, Chinese engineers are being attacked in Gwadar. Some analysts worry that growing scarcity of resources will spark more warfare around the world. But China's need for oil and its willingness to make deals with whomever has it could be a calming influence globally.

[Britbillsfan]

Oil may be a big factor, and the Chinese regime has historically few scruples, BUT since none of AQ/Talebs/OBL actually have any, or real influence on those that have any, then an alliance of convenience would be rather pointless if oil was the object.

 

The Chinese are mostly pragmatic when it comes with their dealings with the outside world, like most governments. They may be repugnant, but they are pragmatists. It would be a lot easier for the US to cut an oil pipeline permanently than AQ/OBL, so why piss off the FAR stronger of the two?

 

As far as the Talebs are concerned, they are an internal looking group based on ancient tradition dressed in the clothing of Islam and nationalism. Part of that tradition was to protect muslims from non-muslims, which is why they were total fools with OBL (major cultural thing). They also have ZERO understanding of the wider world. They were a southern Afghan movement with little interest in anything beyond Afghanistan (and then only the Pastun areas of Pakistan and their Saudi backers), and they were an IMPROVEMENT on what went before in Afghanistan (very difficult to believe, but true). As such it is probably inevitable that a more 'moderate' faction will emerge that China (and everyone else) will pretty much have to deal with on some level.

[Gene Frenkle]

Yeah, there was no terrorism before Bin Laden or Al Qaeda.

294465[/snapback]

17,000 beauties like this one aren't too far off!

 

A bit off topic, but what does that little piece of sarcasm have to do with anything I said? Just wondering if you're simply typing to see your screen name and creative avatar on the monitor.

[/dev/null]

but what does that little piece of sarcasm have to do with anything I said?

294853[/snapback]

 

i dunno gene, its just that bit of sarcasm could use...a little more cowbell

 

i mean it gene, you should really explore the studio space

[Alaska Darin]

17,000 beauties like this one aren't too far off!

 

A bit off topic, but what does that little piece of sarcasm have to do with anything I said?  Just wondering if you're simply typing to see your screen name and creative avatar on the monitor.

294853[/snapback]

You, as usual, didn't "say" anything the least bit poignant. The GWOT is bigger than Al Qaeda/OBL, though the liberals have had a difficult time grasping that concept since 9/11. But living in the past has always been a strength, so soldier on...

 

Keep up with your infatuation with my post count. It's endearing.

[IBTG81]

Keep up with your infatuation with my post count.  It's endearing.

294894[/snapback]

 

Be thankful that's all he's infatuated with...

[Alaska Darin]

Be thankful that's all he's infatuated with...

294916[/snapback]

All crazy stalkers start innocently enough.

[Gene Frenkle]

You, as usual, didn't "say" anything the least bit poignant.

294894[/snapback]

Oh, and your reply to my post really contributed a lot!

 

Every post of mine/every thread on PPP and TSW actually does not necessarily require your response and/or commentary. I'm sure it's lonely up north, but there's no need to stick your nose in and be heard on every single issue.

[Gene Frenkle]

Be thankful that's all he's infatuated with...

294916[/snapback]

Mr. "I'm a horrible person" is questioning my stability? Now I've heard everything.

[Alaska Darin]

Oh, and your reply to my post really contributed a lot!

 

Every post of mine/every thread on PPP and TSW actually does not necessarily require your response and/or commentary.  I'm sure it's lonely up north, but there's no need to stick your nose in and be heard on every single issue.

294972[/snapback]

Well, now in addition to your poor political judgement we can add narcissism and paranoia to the list. Congratulations on your own deluded self importance.

[KRC]

thanks Brit, this is the kind of reply I was hoping for....and I was waiting for someone to call me on using an Indian publication as source

 

your reasoning is exactly what I had in mind when 'October surprise' conspiracy theorists started tossing around a Bin Laden China pact months ago...then I started digging more

China forced to expand role in Central Asia

could China be in league with Bin Laden to 'avoid a confrontation with the wider Muslim world'?....would they now view AQ/OBL, like the Taliban is described here, 'as a reality that has to be moderated and contained' in order to stabilize her own western province?

 

I also agree that it would seem China has much more to lose than gain by being in league with AQ/OBL/Taliban - but, then, oil is a very powerful motivator

 

China's Drive For Oil Affects Militants

294668[/snapback]

 

The group referred to in the first article you cited is ETIM (Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement) or sometimes referred to as (ETIP) Eastern Turkistan Islamic Party. ETIM does have significant ties to AQ (and the Taliban) in the form of training and funding, but they are a pretty small group and China has already stated that they will not recognize any of their demands.

[Gene Frenkle]

Congratulations on your own deluded self importance.

295045[/snapback]

Pot, meet kettle.