Comments on: How does China Define Terrorism?

By: Wang

Wang — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 07:57:35 +0000

Islamic terrorists are not capable of attacking China. Islamic terrorists are extremely afraid of China. Islamic militants are like goats in front of China. While visiting China, found that Muslims there are like domestic animals and are used for works such as to clean toilets, lavotaries, streets etc. Islamic militants actually shiver by fear when even hear about China.
If islamic militants try to attack China then China may eat Islamic militants.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:10:57 +0000

@Guo Hong: It’s not to say we need to change the definition as it applies to those fighting China, but it does raise the completely valid argument about changing the definition for those fighting the US.

We don’t need more terrorists.

By: guo hong

guo hong — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:59:16 +0000

Terrorists mean someone who fight America with violence.
Fighting against China is instead called freedom fighters.

By: So China has Islamic Terrorists Now? « One-Eyed Panda’s Journal

So China has Islamic Terrorists Now? « One-Eyed Panda’s Journal — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:24:53 +0000

[...] China has Islamic Terrorists Now? Jump to Comments Last week I wrote a post on Lost Laowai wondering about how China defined terrorism. I wondered why China wasn’t declaring the Kuming [...]

By: kris

kris — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:37:12 +0000

don’t give a shit really, about what ‘they’ call it……
you know what it is, i know and people know……

By: JohnG

JohnG — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:23:03 +0000

Looks like this might be terrorism after all. I don’t know if the Turkestan Islamic Party actually did this, but they’re claiming responsibility: http://shanghaiist.com/2008/07/26/turkestan_islamic_party_takes_credi.php

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:21:26 +0000

I guess it really comes down to the motives of the executioners of the attack. If they were using terror as a device to forward a political or social agenda, then it would be considered terrorism, if it was simply an act of violence, then not.

@Matt: If piracy can be considered terrorism, then not a nation was innocent of it. Privateers of the times flew all nations’ flags, not just the flag of Islam and they all stole, captured and murdered in the name of something “greater”, not just Allah.

The review, and perhaps the book?, tries too hard to link the Mediterranean piracy and objections of the times to modern day conflicts in the Middle East and Afghanistan (a world away from Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, I’m afraid). It, rather bluntly, tries to discredit the leftist view that more military is not the answer in the conflicts in the Middle East (or, indeed as an overall foreign policy) is likened to the opposition at the time stating that a navy wasn’t needed. A rather simplistic and ignorant comparison.

Sometimes you can learn a lot from history, and sometimes it’s just got nothing to do with it.

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:15:35 +0000

I just found this pretty awsome article, The Last Patriot, that sheds some light on the first encounters america had with Jihadist back in the late 1700s. Its a really interesting article worth checking out.

By: Bill

Bill — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:41:53 +0000

The answer is simple. It is not terrorism until China calls it terrorism. Just like “state secrets”, “illegal transactions”, “proper identification”, “valid reasons”.

By: Rick

Rick — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:14:45 +0000

My friend says there were actually 7 buses, and not just 2 as reported. Says he has a good govt source.