Xinjiang Railway Station Terrorist Attack, Chinese Reactions

Xinjiang Railway Station, scene of a terrorist attack.

The #1 post on leading Chinese microblogging social network Sina Weibo over the past 24 hours…

From Sina Weibo:

@央视新闻: 3 Dead in Urumqi South Railway Station Terrorist Explosion — According to preliminary police investigations, the Urumqi South Railway Station explosion was a serious violent terrorist act. The perpetrator hacked at the crowds with a knife at the Urumqi South Railway Station reception/arrivals area and then detonated an explosive device, causing 3 deaths, 79 injured, among which 4 are seriously injured (not currently in life-threatening condition). At present, the injured are all entered hospitals to receive emergency medical care, with efforts to investigate the case urgently underway.

Comments from Sina Weibo:

赵善朴_BlkMamba:

A naked challenge, is it?! A slap to the face, is it?! Everyone was up all night last night doing their duty, and just as the boss [President Xi Jinping, who is visiting Xinjiang] is leaving, you people immediately do this! Looks like there will be no rest for the May 1st holiday now, I’m just waiting for the call to organize at any moment now! You people want to cause trouble where I grew up and live, but let me tell you: I won’t allow it! As long as the Party and the people need it, I will serve without hesitation and throughout any difficulty! Up until you beasts [terrorists] have been killed off, every last one of you!!! [怒]

女人灬公敌:

Motherfucking, I’m reading the comments here and there are even people who [either “point and curse at Xinjiang” or “are cursed for criticizing Xinjiang”]. I say, brother, you motherfucker, are you in league with the thugs [terrorists], engaged in separatism? You motherfucking stupid cunt.

王艳1014:

This afternoon at 9:30, we got home, opened the door, and after entering, have been busy nonstop, until we heard an urgent knocking on the door. Through the peephole, what we saw was a ethnic minority husband and wife couple (we’re the only ethnic Han household in this building). Upon opening the door, they told us that we had left our keys in the door! A husband and wife couple filled with goodwill and benevolence! All of a suddenly I felt extremely safe!

布依天空:

This is equivalent to a big slap in the face to Big Xi [President Xi Jinping! He had just watched military exercises! Hurry and thoroughly investigate these people! Leave none of them out. [怒][怒][怒]

桑塔纳车主:

Isn’t there martial law/curfew already? Aren’t there patrols every day? Aren’t armored cars driving on the streets? So how can something like this still happen? Is there anyone actually putting their heart into maintaining the peace? Do we ordinary common people have to figure out how to protect ourselves?

夏日炎炎催人眠:

Xinjiang separatists, fuck you.

nfs1112:

The targets of terrorists’ murder does not distinguish between people and country. Their only goal is to terrorize all people! Resolutely crack down on terrorism! Resolutely oppose those trying to divide the people! All speech and actions that seek to divide, discriminate, and provoke conflict between the people must not be tolerated, because that is the goal of terrorists!

阿呆19840503:

When social problems are unable to be placated, the government should first reflect, on blindly using violence to maintain stability and suppress [problems].

xiangjiaopi_mf:

I support Xinjiang people. Those terrorists and separatists are not Xinjiang people!

石军绝不言弃:

Xinjiang jia you!!! [蜡烛][蜡烛][蜡烛][心][心][心]

祁昌军:

Shouldn’t the authorities reflect for a moment, on where the problems are? If it is just an extreme minority, then a high-handed policy is necessary. If that entire ethnicity is unhappy with the authorities, then policies need to be reviewed. What should be high-handed should be high-handed, but what should be conciliated should be conciliated.

世态炎凉_冷暖自知_Y94:

I just want to ask, just what the hell is the National Security Bureau doing?

听说全球变暖了:

Sigh, ethnic strife has always been a yoke on humanity, where any moral standard is always biased. When the general state of things is clearly quite well, why do people insist on being like this? When revenge breeds revenge, when will it end…?

Lang浪花:

Extreme MSL [穆斯林, mu si lin] must be exterminated!!!! Otherwise there will be more innocents harmed!!!

The #3 microblog post of the day was this below, but has since been deleted:

From Sina Weibo:

@导演刘猛: “3 dead”, these three people were all police officers. As they were questioning the suspicious person, the bomb was detonated. They had kept the danger for themselves. [蜡烛]

Four of the top 10 most commented articles on major Chinese web portal NetEase are also about the Xinjiang Urumqi Train Station terrorist attack and bombing:

Comments from NetEase:

网易天津市手机网友 ip:125.39.*.*”

One cannot be soft against thugs, execution without pardon!

imxcc [网易江苏省南京市手机网友]:

Terrorism must be punished severely!

网易陕西省西安市手机网友 ip:223.104.*.*:

Resolutely crack down on terrorism!

网易四川省成都市手机网友 ip:118.122.*.*:

May there be peace in the world! May your family and friends be safe and sound!

网易天津市手机网友 ip:111.161.*.*:

Crack down on terrorists! We mourn our unfortunate dead compatriots!

Help us maintain a vibrant and dynamic discussion section that is accessible and enjoyable to the majority of our readers. Please review our Comment Policy »
  • YourSupremeCommander

    Them Muslims gonna get it now.

    • Irvin

      I hope they do. But to be honest I’m happy to see any religious groups suffer, not just muslims. Fucking glorified ponzi schemes that’s what they are.

      • YourSupremeCommander

        People who are religious are the mentally weak. Everyone I have come across who chose to choose God told me they had problems that they couldn’t deal with and that’s when the turned to Jesus.

        LMFAO. DID THE PROBLEM MAGICALLY GO AWAY?!

        • Mighty曹

          God told me to never believe the internet.

          • YourSupremeCommander

            Well, the internet is God’s own creation, so she told you to NOT believe it?

          • Mighty曹

            So you DO believe in God.

          • YourSupremeCommander

            If the God you are referring to is me, then YES I DO!.

          • Mighty曹

            Did you create the internet?
            Case closed.

          • Paulos

            Whoa, crazy debate skills.

          • YourSupremeCommander

            And I take care of my business.

          • Irvin

            Objection!!!

          • Mighty曹

            It’s all business. Nothing personal.

          • YourSupremeCommander

            PS skills yo!

          • Mighty曹

            Remember the ‘floating officials’!

          • Mighty曹

            I take that as a compliment.

          • Paulos

            It was a compliment!

          • YourSupremeCommander

            Dont you question your creator…. I mean internet creator.

          • mr.wiener

            I thought Kim jung il did.

          • Mighty曹

            He did, at the same time he was shooting 18 ‘hole-in-ones’ the very first time he ever played golf while riding on a unicorn.

          • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

            You sir are misguided. Do not proclaim yourself to false gods. You should turn to the God-Emperor for guidance.

            Ave Imperator. Ave Made-Up-Latin-us

        • Insomnicide

          The problem with religion is that these followers truly believe no matter how many criminal or unethical acts they commit, they can be forgiven by god as long as they worship god.

          • Irvin

            They also think they can find all the answers in an outdated book.

          • YourSupremeCommander

            and confess every other day.

        • fabulous

          I know too many of these people.
          “I couldn’t deal with the hypocrisy in my family until I learned the truth.”
          “I was looking for meaning in life, and I watched these videos, and everything he said made sense.”
          “There were no rules in my life. Everything was out of order. Until I found that life does have order.”
          “I used to watch the news and wonder why. Now I know.”
          Do they ever stop trying to convince you?

      • Don’t Believe the Hype

        Do you know that the terrorists were Muslims or are you just assuming that?

        • Chinese

          Non-muslim uyghurs? Everyday is a school day.

          • Don’t Believe the Hype

            yikes

          • Stefan

            Yes, why not? The same as there are non-muslim arabs.

        • whuddyasack

          An assumption since no information has been released on the terrorists. It could be anyone, but in all likelihood this seems to be the work of the same people who gave us the Kunming knife attack and Tienanmen Square bombing. Of course, not all Muslims are terrorists but sadly, it seems all the terrorists in Xinjiang have been Muslim. It would be unfair to paint all Uighurs under the same broad brush and I understand that they do have genuine grievances with the CCP. It’s just very difficult to sympathize with those that think killing innocent civilians is justifiable.

          • mr.wiener

            Also the best way to make more terrorist is to stage actions like these which leads to a crack down on the Uighur population, creating more discontent and fertile ground for Xinjiang grown Al Kiada groups to thrive and recruit.
            Terrorism 101 really.

          • whuddyasack

            An excellent point. I don’t think the Uighurs are naturally aggressive or violent people, I think there are two elements involved in why they are so frequently involved in the latest terrorist acts. People say that the recent terrorist activities in Xinjiang are unique and based on ethnic/political clout and completely ignore the radical elements in it. I disagree, I think both have something to do with it, I remember reading some articles where there was a crackdown on certain internet users accessing religious extremist/militant type websites. It’s a pity I don’t have them with me at the moment.

            Islamic fundamentalism often seeks out victims of oppression, poverty and despair whereby victims are convinced that violence is the only way. A good example is war-torn Afghanistan, after battling the Soviets and DRA communists, the Mujahideen fought against each other, tearing the country to shreds. Eventually, the Taliban took over as the future of the country remained bleak and with it practiced all sorts of terrorism, ethnic cleansing and human rights abuses. Islamic radicals are most attracted to areas of conflict, suppression, repression, etc. They thrive in restive regions.

            Afghanistan pre and pro-Taliban. I think the world misses the smiles of the Afghan people:

      • mr.wiener

        All of them?
        Can we have a pogrom against all christians because some of them bomb abortion clinics?

        • Irvin

          Not all christians are clinics bombers but perhaps if christians didn’t exist, those clinics wouldn’t be bombed in the first place.

          When someone let an outdated book dictates their action, crazy shit tents to happen, that’s all I’m saying. Can you imagine if they made DOS holy? We’ll still be typing command lines now instead of clicking away leisurely.

          Religion promotes stagnation of the mind therefore a stagnation of our growth as an intelligent specie.

          • mr.wiener

            “Not all (………s) are (……..s) bombers but perhaps if (………s) didn’t exist, those (……..s) wouldn’t be bombed in the first place.”

            See what I did there? Now before I start patting myself on the back for being so clever I’d better remind everyone this is not a religious war brewing, it is a war of culture, language and occupation.

          • Irvin

            It’s one thing for being slapped for touching someone’s ass, it’s another for being slapped because an imaginary person told the other person to slap you.

            Reasons for our action matters. At it’s core it may be a war of culture, language and occupation and I can very much respect that, but I’m sure it’s more about religion for them.

  • Cameron

    “Shouldn’t the authorities reflect for a moment, on where the problems are? If it is just an extreme minority, then a high-handed policy is necessary. If that entire ethnicity is unhappy with the authorities, then policies need to be reviewed. What should be high-handed should be high-handed, but what should be conciliated should be conciliated”

    Very reasonable. With that in mind, this is a good place to start. A ninety page background and report of the issues behind the unrest, albeit now 15 years out of date.
    http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA17/018/1999/en/75880894-e285-11dd-abce-695d390cceae/asa170181999en.pdf

  • dag

    As Pakistan and Afghanistan become more unstable,
    China’s Muslim problem will only grow.
    Islam is in contradiction with the modern world.

    • Irvin

      It’s in contradiction with common sense, all religions are.

      • Not all. Being saved by faith alone in the one who made us and has authority over our lives, Jesus Christ, is not unreasonable. The Bible gets at our hearts, not being in contradiction with ScIence, but with SIN…when we prefer SIN over salvation, that is when we lose common sense and our chance at eternal life.

        • yangsiyuan

          Sorry, your religion is just as fake as Islam. There is no difference.

          • fabulous

            If that helps you sleep at night.

          • Suzhou PRC

            Who gave you the authority to decide what’s fake and what’s not? This world is ********** because of people like you… Look at the real problem

          • Irvin

            No one needs to give us authority to decide what’s fake and what’s not, we decide for ourselves through logic and common sense, something religious people lack.

          • Dr Sun

            whats common sense ?
            in the 80′ and 90″ that was getting a sub-prime, toxic mortgage loan. Having multiple credit cards and maxim them out.

            look at how smart and logical that was in the end for all those who got bankruptcy and repossession from using popular “common sense logic”

            Better you use uncommon sense and logic.

          • JayJay

            Yes!! I for one think Santa Clause is completely real!! and Unicorns!

          • yangsiyuan

            Lol. Have you seen any militant atheist bombings? Have you seen the Chinese which are a majority atheist bombing things in the name of atheism? No? Then people like me are not the problem. Only religious people do that shit.

          • Dr Sun

            The IRA’s long campaign in Ireland and the UK, Black september,the Red Army faction, The Black Panthers, The Sandinistas, Farc,Action direct, Shinning path, the Oklahoma bombing and current drone bombings all immediatly spring to mind

          • Juvenal

            On the IRA war, yes there was religion involved but just like in Xinjiang region, certain people were being left out of the societal loop. Now the other you mentioned, espeicaily the Red Army Faction, they were nihilists at best using some ideology to trick others into thinking they were doing best for the people. The Oklahoma bombing by McVeigh was more of a protest to the attack in Waco, Texas and McVeigh was a self confessed atheist.

          • Dr Sun

            thank you for making my point, religion was not the issue in any the examples I gave, although you only chose to respond to selected few.

          • linette lee

            I want to know why religion like Islam has so many extremists and not other religions. What’s the reason behind that? What are they teaching that you have so many extremists committing bloody attack on innocent people. So many cases like that. Why? Many muslim that I speak to seems to have so much HATE on other people in other religions. Some even make comments like wish them die or just really extreme hate. Most other religions teach tolerance forgiveness and hate is a sin.

            Can someone from this religion answer my question. I am really curious. I am not being offensive. I just want to know why. Thank you.

          • Yes!

            Read the Quran. For starters, the Quran states that all unbelievers i.e. non-Muslims, are infidels, and all infidels must be killed. Secondly, Allah the Muslim God, “must have no rivals”. Oh btw, the Old Testament also says infidels must be put to death.

          • Dr Sun

            Dr. Naik makes some very interesting observations about the verse. “Indeed, it is truly amazing how Islam-haters will ignore God’s infinite mercy in their attempt to malign Islam. God has always given human beings a way out of any suffering, and has only ordained fighting as a last resort. Muslim scholars have written much commentary on these Qur’anic verses explaining the historical context in such great detail so that there may be no misconceptions. They have quoted extensively from various commentators on these verses and there is no need to repeat the same material again. We will provide one more commentary before moving on. Professor Shahul Hameed writes on verse 9:5:

            This is a verse taken from Surah At-Tawba. This chapter of the Qur’an was revealed in the context when the newly organized Muslim society in Madinah was engaged in defending themselves against the pagan aggressors. The major question dealt with here is, as to how the Muslims should treat those who break an existing treaty at will. The first clause in the verse refers to the time-honored Arab custom of a period of warning and waiting given to the offenders, after a clear violation. That is, they will be given four months’ time to repair the damage done or make peace. But if nothing happens after the expiry of these forbidden months, what should be done? This is what the present verse says. According to this verse, fighting must be resumed until one of the two things happens: Either the enemy should be vanquished by relentless fighting. That is what is meant by {then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem [of war]}; or they should repent, establish prayers and pay zakah, etc. This is one of those verses of the Qur’an which are likely to be misunderstood, if quoted out of context. We must understand that this fighting was against a people who forced the Prophet and his companions to leave not only their own homes but all their property and even their hometown of Makkah to Madinah. Once the Muslims were organized into a community in those lawless times, the rules to be followed by the Muslims were clearly laid down, even in the matter of war. Since Islam is a comprehensive system, no human activity could be ignored. And given the nature of mankind, we cannot imagine a situation where fighting is completely ruled out either. As can be seen, the above injunctions on fighting is not on an individual level, but only in the case of a society that strives to flourish and thrive as a nation. But even here the norms are clear: fighting is only in self defence or for the establishment of justice; and always fighting is the last option. And no one is allowed to transgress the limits set by God.”
            There are many verses also in the Quran that explain when it is wrong to fight someone, such as when someone wishes to have peace and does not wish to fight (it is not allowable to then fight them). Or others which explain that being equitable and kind towards non-muslims is not wrong, it is taking those who fight muslims as friends which is wrong (because a lot of times some will also try to say you cannot befriend non-muslims per Quran).

            I just give you those verses in response, as when some ignorant person wants to quote one line out of a book they’ve never taken the time to read. I don’t expect them to care, or even read what I have to say… I just don’t want some non-muslim who is curious reading your statement, and becoming ignorant because of it.

            Don’t worry about the people who have their own agenda’s, and want to stir up trouble rather than having a real conversation where they might learn something. They’re not worth the effort. It’s those who who want the truth and are willing to be respectful that you should aim your explanations towards, because it is they who you will not be wasting your time on.

            Hope that clarifies it for you.

          • Yes!

            Thank you. You’ve made a great effort here. Frankly, I know that when you pare down a religious doctrine to its simplest form, it will always be out of context. Imho, to put it bluntly, the quran, the bible, these religious texts were written for societies that existed hundreds, thousands of years ago. While the essence of the teachings may be relevant today – universal values such as human goodness, etc – the instructions in those books are always going to be unevenly applied “out of context”, in this modern times, because readers and followers are not all equally intelligent as to understand the context in which those books were written. May I even venture to say that, under tutelage of different preachers and clerics, their interpretations are always going to be inconsistent with one another because of individual biases and cultural, social and political backgrounds. And, presented and manipulated to justify their own agendas. The simplified, adulterated post I made up there to which you responded, those are what majority of Muslims and even non-Muslims understand of what the religion instructs. You are right about the context. But, I would argue, there are not many people like you – I guess you could be a Muslim or someone who studies the religion – who actually try to understand it. Don’t expect the infidels to sit down and understand it, it’s not their business, so they’ll go by the 3 point (or whatever number of point) version. The whole world is getting caught up by and very nervous about this Muslim…er…’problem’, for lack of a better word.

            Larger question here: why aren’t Muslim leaders and scholars who understand the quran better, coming out to help educate their brothers and bring them back on the leash? As pointed out by you, Muslims shall not wage war on an infidel who want peace. Well, the innocent Chinese Hans at the railway station weren’t waging war on the Muslims, were they? Even in Singapore, where inter-religious relations are already pretty well managed and harmonious by world standards of governance, the non-Muslim community is getting more nervous by the day because the Muslims, already enjoying a lot of privileges and institutionalised respect and support – granted by the majority 85% non-Muslim community at the polls – are craving for more. Recently, a school principal decided to turn the whole school canteen halal, and decreed that non-Muslims (the Chinese) are not allowed to eat their home-made pork/ham non-halal cooked food in the canteen. Student population, as is at national level, is 85% non-Muslim, 15% Muslims. All schools under the government are secular. (This canteen order was later reversed after public outcry). Then, at another event, a Muslim lecturer asked the govt to allow Muslims in uniformed organisations (nurses in hospitals, police, etc) to wear the hijab. The non-Muslim community are feeling that sooner or later someone will insist that they be allowed to wear the Arab burga (that covers the whole body except the eyes), or even legislate shariah law as a separate law for Muslims only, which would bring it to direct conflict with civil law. That’s 15% of the population wanting 100% of public space. That brings into question, whether Islamic ideology can actually live peacefully with other religions, as it has often claimed to be a religion of peace? Because to cede public space to Muslims, would mean conceding non-Muslim space. It’s a matter of time before the other 85% non-Muslim community want to push back. Unless, of course, if some highly-regarded influential Muslim scholar rise up and revise the quran to make it applicable to the current day socio-political context, which I don’t see happening, the general feeling is that since Islamic ideology is non-compromising and unyielding, then the clash of religions is inevitable. This is already happening around the world.

          • fabulous

            The train station thing wasn’t a Muslim thing, it was an ethnic thing.
            Everybody wants to be, or be allied with, the best. If people find themselves outnumbered by people who are different to themselves they will either seek to fit in with the stronger group or seek to strengthen their own position. Ethnic groups can strengthen their own position in many ways. They can pick a religion and run with that. They can create an easily recognizable identity; one which is sufficiently distinguishable from the opposition. They can also create a siege mentality, to varying degrees. This us-versus-them mentality is created by families teaching their kids not to marry outsiders, by peer groups ostracizing individuals who wish to cross over and by politicizing individual conflicts. It would appear that these “Xinjiang” terrorists are using the latter tactic.

          • whuddyasack

            Unfortunately, there is a difference. Christians aren’t bombing and killing other people in the name of Christ Jesus the same way Muslims proclaim that their god is great every time they self-detonate.

          • Henry C

            Not true. Christians do bomb and kill other people, and try to justify it with their religion. European imperialism, the white American settlers’ war on the Native Americans, and other acts of American imperialism have all been justified in the name of religion. The American war on the Philippines at the turn of the century was supported by a number of Protestant Christian pastors who wanted to rescue the Philippines from Catholic influence. Fundamentalist Christian pastors in the US still urge their flock to be patriotic and support the military, and if you are paying attention, this is a military that bombs and kills other people, often under false pretext, as in Iraq.

            Conservative columnist and Fox News favorite Ann Coulter said, and I quote:

            “We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now.

            We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”

            Perhaps you think Ann Coulter is a radical exception. But consider that Coulter was appealing to her base, and a significant number of Americans really do think the US has the moral high ground in any war in the Middle East because in their minds “We’re Christian, they’re Muslim.”

            As far as atheists, Chinese (many who are atheist) will rally to strike back at Xinjiang, which is understandable, but illegal detentions, repression of religion and speech, and the accidental execution of innocent people will be justified in the name of ethnic solidarity and nationalism rather than religion. The cycle of revenge will continue. So it’s not just religion that’s at fault here. It’s a mentality of us versus them, the reflexive habit of seeing one’s own group as infallible and seeing the “enemy” as the incarnation of evil during a time of war. And it could be argued that the terrorists from Xinjiang are really acting on behalf of their ethnic group, while Islam is merely used as an ideological motivation and justification. Religion is powerful as a mobilizing device, but then again, so is nationalism, which can itself take on religious characteristics.

        • James in China

          You’re literally an idiot if you believe that nonsense. I mean, have you ever even read that book, the bible? It’s despicable.

          • mr.wiener

            I liked the one about the Levite and his concubine,
            The bible is a good book…but I wouldn’t take it as gospel ;)

          • JayJay

            haha… good book… have you read it?

          • fabulous

            I did. And the whole time I was reading, I was thinking, “Is this verse controversial enough to get retweeted?”

        • Irvin

          Your definition of “common sense” is very different from mine.

        • Blue

          If you need a storybook and the threat of damnation to stop you from doing bad things to other people, you’re already screwed. You’re a ticking bomb, my friend.

          • wnsk

            I’m curious to know what stops you from doing bad things to other people. Were you born with some sort of natural moral compass? Or is it merely the threat of legal persecution (meaning you would do bad things to others, if you thought you could get away with it)? What, in fact, makes bad things “bad”? Who decides what’s “bad” and what’s “good”, and how do we know for sure they’re correct?

          • Blue

            I don’t do to other people the things that I wouldn’t like other people to do to me.
            Your philosophical question of what makes bad things bad, and are they really bad, is a societal question which has fluctuated and changed endlessly throughout time.
            As for me: I decide what’s bad. Fear of prosecution may deter me from doing some things deemed bad by society, if I feel the consequences outweigh the action. But if I feel it is necessary, no punishment would deter me from doing what I deem to be right, regardless of whether it’s considered bad by law. You can answer your own question in any way you wish: that’s your right.

          • wnsk

            You can answer your own question in any way you wish: that’s your right.

            Exactly. Isn’t that what the people of religion are doing? They are deciding for themselves, just as you have decided for yourself. You may think the Bible is a “storybook”, they don’t. At the end of the day, only our own opinions matter, to ourselves. There is really no need to belittle others for/or their beliefs.

            Juuuust saying.

          • Blue

            It is your right. That’s not the point. It’s the old “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll fight for your right to say it”.
            I didn’t mean to belittle anyone, but when people start preaching about sin and salvation, I do tend to get a little short. Especially when they are attempting to push their ideals upon others, which is back to the root of the problem we were originally talking about.
            But my point was that normal, well adjusted people, whether they have faith or not, should not need a book or threats of damnation to be able to differentiate between what a reasonable, logical person (again, despite whether they have faith or not) would consider right or wrong.

          • wnsk

            You’re more optimistic about people than I am. I can respect that.

            Myself, I think people need stories. They need their so-called myths.

          • Blue

            Maybe I’m just having an optimistic day, haha. I may be cynical tomorrow.

          • fabulous

            That’s another bubow there Blue.
            Storybooks and threats of damnation are always used to stop people from doing bad things to other people. That’s not a religious thing, that’s a behaviour management thing.

          • Blue

            What’s a bubow??
            I never specified it as a religious problem (although predominantly it is).
            It’s about the dislocation of oneself from reality, where they need justification or vindication for/of their actions based upon the beliefs or writings of others.
            Yes this may in some circumstances be advised, considered, and wise. However, ones own intellect, common sense, logic, reason, self awareness should be enough to determine right from wrong, regardless of some ancient text which has been edited thoroughly and endlessly throughout history to serve the ideals of the time.

          • fabulous

            I think you have missed a step there Blue.
            All of those intellectual qualities which you have assumed every person has, are learned. Children aren’t born with these abilities; through exposure to stimuli and constant modification of schema, children learn to function with “common sense”. By interacting with the people around them (random) and being led through stories (directed) they learn how to work and communicate with others. None of that is dislocation of reality.

            On a side note; bubow is the sound you hear when your answer is incorrect.
            On a second side note; in another thread you may have needed to specify that you thought it was a religious problem. In this thread you would need to specify that you thought it wasn’t.

          • Blue

            So you’re saying that fables and stories that taught us when we were kids need to be fed to us incessantly throughout our lives to keep us on the straight and narrow? Forgive me, but things like the bogey man and stuwelpeter are entertaining stories and good for illustrating consequences, but I don’t need to believe they are true to grasp the moral of the story.
            I have no problem with storytelling. I love a great story. Particularly if you can take something valuable from it. But use your own mind instead of blindly following others.
            Please tell me where I have contradicted myself, and I will either humble myself or attempt to justify my comments. If you note my earlier thread, I quite clearly state twice “whether religious or not”.
            Also, you first response was “That’s another bubow for you”: where were the others?

          • Dr Sun

            “It’s about the dislocation of oneself from reality, where they need justification or vindication for/of their actions based upon the beliefs or writings of others”
            “things like the bogey man and stuwelpeter are entertaining stories and good for illustrating consequences . I love a great story. Particularly if you can take something valuable from it.”

          • Blue

            I never said we are incapable of learning. Ok, “dislocation of oneself from reality” was perhaps a bad choice of words. But I meant, removal of oneself from any guilt or blame, with the justification that “God says it’s ok”.
            I still stand by my original comment, but it is to be taken within reason. It’s not a blanket statement that we need no input, or stimuli to develop a moral compass. I think most people would read that first comment and understand it within the context it is written, and not need endless clarification on the point to grasp my intended meaning.

          • fabulous

            Your comment, to which I first replied was “If you need a storybook and the threat of damnation to stop you from
            doing bad things to other people, you’re already screwed.” In a thread of people discussing religion the implication that you are discussing religion is quite strong. I’m sorry that I didn’t see your earlier statement but the only statement I saw was a reply to mine.
            I’m also sorry that I have written such a vague first sentence. It should have read more like “That’s another bubow, this time for you.” as it was a continuation of a train of thought begun in a previous comment (to Irvin I believe).

            Maybe I can summarize what I am saying because your summary just will not do.
            Stories and threats of damnation are effective behavior modifiers and not a reason to hate religions or mock religious people.

            Children learn children’s stories and adults tell each other adult stories, with a view to internalizing those concepts so that they will become second nature and the story will not be needed anymore. I would hazard a guess to say that everyone, in every group, does the same thing; while I can only think of specific Christian sutras for it.
            There are many different damnations with which people are threatened in order to modify their behavior. Some of these are explicit, while others are implicit; some are for right now and some are for after you die. Not all threats are designed to prevent a person from hurting other people and many of these threats are designed to keep people from hurting themselves. Seat belt and bicycle helmet laws are two which come to mind. However most threats are designed to keep people living and working together nicely, even as each person’s inherent selfishness is pulling in an opposite direction.
            For the sake of behavior modification you certainly don’t need to believe that a story actually happened. That may certainly help single mothers to discipline their children but it isn’t the reason all of these stories were written.

      • fabulous

        If we are defining religion as the rationale by which people explain the environment around them allowing them to explain what at first didn’t make sense to themselves, we see that religions as a concept make a lot of sense.
        If we are defining religion as those guys that believe in gods and they are stupid then it’s the initial conceptual definition which is destroying our argument and making us sound stupid.

        • Irvin

          You’re confusing religion with science. “those guys that believed in gods” is how religious people define themselves.

          • fabulous

            That’s a resounding bubow there Irvin.
            You’re confusing “Science” with “anti-religion”.
            Believing in Science is not being without religion; that’s agnosticism.
            Every religion is a rationale by which people explain the environment around them, allowing
            them to explain what at first didn’t make sense to themselves. The physical environment is there for everyone to see, it is just that different religions ascribe different explanations to how and why things got there and how and why they continue to happen.
            Every religion says that it is not a religion while denying the validity of all others. Your religion is obviously no different.

          • Irvin

            Except that science derive from theories and it changes and evolve with our understanding of the world, religion does not change, it takes all its info from an outdated book and if you question it they considered it blasphemy and in islam you can be executed.

            But believe what you want to believe, I don’t really care, unlike you religious insane people, my believes doesn’t requires others to believe what I believe for it to be true.

          • fabulous

            You’ve made it fairly clear that your religion of choice is Science/Atheism. I’ll direct my discussion solely in this direction from now on then.
            You’ve also made it fairly clear that, like a new believer in any religion, your arguments are full of soundbite quotes and zeal to defend the faith from the insane unbelievers.

            Every religion, and religious conversion, starts with people who are unsatisfied with the explanations of others. Maybe they are too strict, too hypocritical, too vague, too against-the-thing-I-want to-do. This is often released within the broader structure of the original religion; and contrary to your previous assertion, this leads to splits, reformations, dogmatic variations and the current plethora of Christian denominations. When these ideological stretches aren’t enough, people move between religions or take a hiatus from believing anything (These true skeptics are called Agnostics.).

            Now it is true that some religions are more adaptive to a changing understanding of the natural environment (Religions such as Science/Atheism, Animism or some branches of Buddhism) but even they adhere to certain immutable, “irrefutable” laws. So, in contradiction to your final argument, the only requirement for something to be true in these cases is that enough people believe what I believe.

        • Surfeit

          “Religions as a concept make a lot of sense.”@www.HASHTAGlaughingemojiFACE.com

          • fabulous

            I must admit I didn’t try your link, but your misuse of quotes didn’t give me a great deal of hope.

            Did you not read the whole sentence?

            Throughout history, and in your everyday life, you will not fail to notice that people have always searched for a way to explain their environment. People have created rules by which they explain how and why things happen, happened and will happen. Many religions have ascribed the why and how of their environment to deities; one, a bunch or one for each thing in the environment. Other religions have ascribed the why and how of their environment to more general, abstract concepts such as good, evil and chance.

            Each religion has its own prophets, seminaries and methods of dissemination. Following the rules set up within your religion of choice gives one a sense of purpose and predictability.

            If we wish to choose our own explanation/religion that’s fine. If we don’t wish to choose an explanation, it’s called agnosticism. But we can’t pretend that the concept of religion doesn’t make sense.

          • Surfeit

            No misuse! I think it’s a laughable statement to make.

            I’m also finding it incredibly ironic that you’re telling me what I see, think, and deduce, then stating what people can and can’t do, because it’s your opinion.

            You make baby Jesus cry.

          • fabulous

            If you wanted to say that you thought the concept of religion making a lot of sense was laughable you would write your own sentence, and not need quotation marks.
            If you wanted to quote the part of my sentence which suited your bias you would quote it like this “…religions as a concept make a lot of sense.”
            So… that is a misuse of quotes.

            I’m not going to get into a debate about irony; I don’t see it in what you’ve written but that’s not what we are talking about here and I don’t wish to get off topic. What I would like to clarify is that you think I’m telling you what you can and can’t do. That is a remark which is often leveled at religions, and often rightly so. However, in case it was being leveled at me, I’ll reply.
            When I said “…we can’t pretend that the concept of religion doesn’t make sense”, I should have explained why. When we mock our opponents (and pretending that their point of view is worthless is just another form of mockery) it may make us feel superior but it doesn’t make us right. When you preach to the choir you always get an amen. And in that case, you certainly can pretend that your opponent’s argument make no sense. That is your right; whether you see it as god given, fruit given, society given or human nature given. However (and this is the point I was trying to make earlier), we can’t do that and expect anyone in an unbiased position to be swayed by our arguments.

          • Surfeit

            Ah! I see what you mean! I stand corrected! It was a gross misuse! Apologies.

            I think you understood perfectly what I found ironic because you conveyed it so well; defending religion and then delivering a rhetoric of ‘this is like this because…’, and ‘people do things this way…’. Your further explanation makes a lot of sense, but again it’s mere opinion that you’re laying down as law, again summarised with “we can’t…”.

            I think this is out of hand anyway. I’m not disagreeing with your points too greatly. Initially it was a note of humour towards a statement, and later the grandiloquent response. I also see a misapprehension now (on my part); The semantic difference I have between ‘religions as a concept’ and ‘the concept of religion’. As such this faces being an insufferable, drawn out dispute of swings and roundabouts in which we’ll be focused on dissimilar concerns.

            I’ve no interest in that and I’m sure neither do you.

      • bebek_loncat

        Never talk about religion because you’ll never know who you will insult. It will only show people how shallow you are or probably the non existence of your brain.

        • Irvin

          Insulting them is the purpose. For all the shit they do, they deserve it.

    • Yes!

      Abrahamic religions share this same characteristic.

    • Jahar

      Seriously though, guys. Shouldn’t we be talking about the Big Bang Theory?

    • Suzhou PRC

      Actually Afghanistan and especially Pakistan are moving towards great stability. China s Muslim population got nothing to do with Pakistan! Get your facts right! Do you know what’s the real problem in Xinjiang?

      • dag

        For 50 cents, you should do your research.

        Today’s news:

        “Taliban targets schoolgirls in Pakistan”
        Aljazeera.com-May 1, 2014

        CBS News
        “Car Bomb Kills 13 at Afghanistan Checkpoint”

        ABC News-21 hours ago
        “China has long claimed the unrest in Xinjiang province to have an Islamist dimension with ties to cells in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Pakistan, but there have been few takers for these accusations. Several of the more infamous incidents – the Ürümqi bus bombing in 1997, the Aksu bombing in 2010, and the Hotan and Kashgar attacks in 2011 were all carried out by Uighurs, a persecuted ethnic minority in north-western China.”

        http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/standpoint-combating-terrorism-in-central-asia-what-will-us-china-india-and-pakistan-do-1977937

        • Boris

          You believe the CCP?

    • Suzhou PRC

      The problem is political and how the Chinese government treats Xinjiang and Tibetans…

    • niggaplz

      “Islam, I wrote, was a religion ideally suited for the badly urbanized poor who were willing to fight.”

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2014/02/06/why-so-much-anarchy/

  • IsurvivedChina

    Some of the comments above are quite scary, but not unexpected!

  • loki

    slap terrorism on the incident and all the monkeys are behind the PRC…

  • Yes!

    Buddha said: Every action must have a reaction.

    Uyghurs are historically not violent, quite unlike those further west around the Iran/Iraq region. There’s a way to make them feel a part of Chinese society, but obviously the provincial government have failed to understand how to integrate them into the empire. (Psst. Xinjiang was not China’s, just as Tibet was not….but, whatever). The more the central government play hardball and use oppressive methods, the sharper the hitback from the Uyghurs. They should send the whole provincial government team to Singapore to study how to handle inter-religious relationships.

    • Mighty曹

      Is that Buddha’s teaching or law of physics? :D
      I’m not sure if China wants to assimilate the minorities as much as just flooding the regions with Hans and simply overtaking them. The railway was built primarily to ‘move’ people.

      • Chinese

        “The railway was built primarily to ‘move’ people westward.”

        Sounds about right.

      • Insomnicide

        Western migration is actually still quite low, it’s not like Han Chinese are ‘flooding’ and ‘colonizing’ the region as many western commentary claims.

        The railway I suspect, was probably built for logistical transportation in the defence of the western borders.

        • Mighty曹

          It is, according to one segment that aired on Discovery Channel.

        • Reptilian

          In defense against whom? An India threatening to reclaim Tibet on behalf of the Dalai Lama? The social reengineering has as a crucial component the rejiggering of the population makeup of these restive regions, and that policy started soon after the People’s Republic was founded. The policy was made for Tibet and Xinjiang. No “reverse migration” trend has ever been recorded in both provinces. If there is, please quote your source for us.

    • Alex Dương

      Psst. Xinjiang was not China’s, just as Tibet was not….but, whatever.

      False.

      They should send the whole provincial government team to Singapore to study how to handle inter-religious relationships.

      I agree, but there is an irony in suggesting Singapore since arguably a big reason why Singapore handles inter-ethnic / inter-religious relationships well (or relatively well) is that it is illegal to, quote, “promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes.” In other words, Singapore actively suppresses some freedom of speech to maintain societal harmony.

      • Butsu

        “Singapore actively suppresses some freedom of speech”

        And this is nothing new in China so they might as well give it a try.

        • Alex Dương

          As I said, I agree with the suggestion of consulting and learning from Singapore. I pointed that out to remind Yes! that while he often criticizes the PRC / CCP for suppressing freedom of speech in Hong Kong, he is essentially advocating that the PRC learn from a country that has dealt with this problem by…suppressing freedom of speech.

          • wnsk

            I doubt China can learn anything from Singapore and apply it successfully. The latter is a small country and a lot more manageable than China. I don’t know if China has sedition laws (that section you quoted), but even if it does not, and it implements this law exactly as Singapore does, do you think that will make the Uighur separatists shut up and not do what they’re doing now? Bombing train stations and whatnot is already illegal in itself.

          • Alex Dương

            I view learning from Singapore and Hong Kong from a “bottom up” perspective: try to experiment at the city level up instead from the country level down. I don’t think that particular law is the only reason why Singapore has relatively good ethnic / religious harmony, but it is definitely a reason and a big one at that. I mainly brought it up just because I find it eyerollingly ironic that Yes! is praising a country that has suppressed freedom of speech to tackle a problem when he has previously criticized the PRC for trying to suppress freedom of speech in Hong Kong.

          • wnsk

            Definitely a big reason…in Singapore. But it won’t make that much of a difference in China. Singapore lacks natural resources…its only resource is people. Therefore, it is vital and urgent for the people to unite and cooperate, for survival’s sake…the people can see and understand that for themselves. It’s just not the same situation in/for China.

            But yeah, I get what you mean about the irony.

          • Alex Dương

            Therefore, it is vital and urgent for the people to unite and cooperate, for survival’s sake…the people can see and understand that for themselves.

            Ah, I did not think of it that way. Yes, I concede that it may be difficult to “generalize” policies in Singapore to a much larger country in terms of geography like China. Still, at least as far as starting points go, I think Singapore is a pretty reasonable first choice from which to try to learn from.

          • wnsk

            You may be right.

            Personally though, I don’t think there’s a need to look anywhere else. China need only look at itself to know what can or cannot be done. All that’s required to effect change (if change is desired) is time and resolve.

      • Rick in China

        “Psst. Xinjiang was not China’s, just as Tibet was not….but, whatever.”

        “False.”

        I’m curious, Du’o’ng, at what point do you believe China consistently “controlled” Xinjiang? In which dynasty until modern day, did Xinjiang belong to a series of dynasties which can be considered modern China?

        Really….. Very curious as to your conception of history, and when this area of land was truly ‘owned’ by ‘China’. I find it amusing to think about your answers, and consider how ridiculous it may be.

        EDIT: Consider this in your argument:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Territories_of_Dynasties_in_China.gif

        Woops. Looks like a fully invaded occupied territory by any stretch of the imagination from my viewing. Maybe you can be the hero to correct this obvious misconception of history?

        • Alex Dương

          I’m curious, Du’o’ng, at what point do you believe China consistently “controlled” Xinjiang?

          China consistently controlled Xinjiang after Qianlong committed genocide against the Zunghar people. So that’s from 1758 to 1911.

          In which dynasty until modern day, did Xinjiang belong to a series of dynasties which can be considered modern China?

          You’d have to tell me which year you think is the cutoff for “modern China.” 1911? 1842? 1683? Other?

          I find it amusing to think about your answers, and consider how ridiculous it may be.

          From my perspective, Rick, the only thing that’s ridiculous is that so few people call you out on your open advocacy for territorial claims based on irredentism.

          • Rick in China

            Let me get this straight – you’re saying that a couple hundred years ago China invaded a territory that they did not control, nor ethnically populate, committed genocide, and oppressed the region pretty consistently until now – therefor that area belongs to China, am I right? And you’re saying “false” (without giving context) to Yes!’s statement that Xinjiang did not belong to the notion we consider ‘China’, which you seem to agree with as pretty much true until that incident? I’m confused.

          • Kai

            I feel like this comment is just begging for a specific juxtaposition…

          • Rick in China

            Except for the resulting separatism and creation of separate nations.

          • Kai

            I don’t think your position on the issue is best articulated and defended by the characterizations you used and are again using. There are good arguments and bad arguments for your position. I think you’re going down the wrong path.

          • Alex Dương

            Let me get this straight – you’re saying that a couple hundred years ago China invaded a territory that they did not control, nor ethnically populate, committed genocide, and oppressed the region pretty
            consistently until now – therefor that area belongs to China, am I right?

            Yes. And as I said to you, if you find this ridiculous, absurd, distasteful, and so forth, I really, really, really hope you renounced your Canadian citizenship.

            And you’re saying “false” (without giving context) to Yes!’s statement that Xinjiang did not belong to the notion we consider ‘China’, which you seem to agree with as pretty much true until that incident? I’m confused.

            Do we really need context when it comes to Xinjiang and Tibet? Yes! was obviously implying that these were not parts of China until the evil Chinese Communists invaded and annexed them. If you want to play exact words with me, no problem. This is the crux of the matter: if you don’t accept Xinjiang as Chinese, then what is the criteria for you accepting a Chinese territorial claim as “Chinese”?

            Clearly, it seems that 260 years is not long enough for you to say a Chinese territorial claim is “Chinese.” So what’s long enough, then? 300 years? 500 years? 1000 years? Or is time irrelevant? And if it’s irrelevant, then what is relevant?

        • Alex Dương

          Looks like a fully invaded occupied territory by any stretch of the imagination from my viewing. Maybe you can be the hero to correct this obvious misconception of history?

          Yes, Xinjiang was a “fully invaded occupied territory”…in the 18th Century. As I said, Xinjiang became a part of China in 1758 after Qianlong committed genocide against the Zunghar people.

          You seem to want to say that since it was a “fully invaded occupied territory,” it isn’t or shouldn’t be Chinese. Oh boy. If you feel that way, then I hope you renounced your Canadian citizenship. If you did, then I’d give you points for consistency. But if you didn’t, then you’re just a hypocrite.

    • Dr Sun

      I agree , the more you squeeze, the more you lose

      • Paulos

        I think he’s just paraphrasing karmaphala, though the concept goes back to way before Buddha. If you’re looking for a particular quote I’d say check the Rigveda.

    • Chinese

      “Uyghurs are historically not violent”

      Oh, really?

      Your sympathy is wrongly placed.

      • Don’t Believe the Hype

        you are confusing sympathy with understanding. understanding makes it stop, ignoring the problem makes it continue

      • ScottLoar

        To Yes!;

        “Uyghurs are historically not violent,”and so never part of the perennial Muslim unrest in Western China that’s gone on now for about a thousand years?

    • wnsk

      Is religion the major bone of contention? I think not.

      • Yes!

        It is, because for muslims, everything they do, what they eat, how they think, how they dress, their customs and practices, who they interact with and marry, are prescribed for them in their quran. Rapid economic development and urbanisation coupled with massive inflow of Han “foreigners”in the province inevitably impinge on their sense of muslim identity and muslim way of life. Because of contrasting social values and norms, conflicts are bound to arise between the two cultures, and the provincial government in trying to maintain “harmony” use the only tactic they know to deal with the problems – brutal force. Muslims always see such acts as against their religion because their religious beliefs are intricately weaved into their daily lives. This part, of course, it must be said, is not exclusive to Uygur muslims – it’s a human trait. As in, if among a bunch of Chinese workers (in a bunch of multi-national workforce), one of them is being punished for an employment infringement and the boss happens to be a Jap, the whole bunch will cry nationality victimisation, validity of punishment notwithstanding.

        • Blue

          I have many Muslim friends, from many different countries. I’ve very rarely experienced such zealots, despite any devoutedness of their beliefs. I think to label the entire Muslim community in such a way is rather narrow minded.

        • wnsk

          Thing is, the Uighurs aren’t the only Muslims in China. Yet they (the separatists) are the only ones causing trouble?

    • Insomnicide

      Uyghurs were part of the Mongol khanates where they killed millions in central Asia.

      And before that they also had their own khanate where they ruled with an iron fist. So the idea that Uyghurs are historically non-violent is a false one. Same with Tibetans actually.

      Now as for weather Xinjiang belongs to China or not. Han Chinese have been in Xinjiang longer and than the Uyghur Turks who came over from modern day Kazakhstan and slaughtered the native Yuezhi and settler Han Chinese inhabitants.

      • Jahar

        Han chinese had some small outposts in small parts of xinjiang a long time ago, yes, but the majority of the area was never controlled by a han chinese dynasty.

        • Insomnicide

          Except the Han and Tang dynasty?

          • Jahar

            small portions of it, but not most of it.

          • Jahar

            Didn’t realize the Tang had so much. The first map I saw just had a small part of it.

        • Alex Dương

          A fair chunk of it was within Tang borders, but that’s irredentist and not why Xinjiang is Chinese in my opinion. It’s much simpler: Xinjiang was a part of the Qing Empire, and the Republic of China succeeded the Qing Empire.

          On a related note, the Uyghurs are arguably not indigenous to Xinjiang. Xinjiang became a part of the Qing Empire after Qianlong warred with and ultimately committed genocide against the Dzungars, who were a people of Mongolian origin. The Uyghurs settled in Xinjiang afterward.

          None of this absolves CCP policies in Xinjiang. And it is true that the Chinese colonized Xinjiang. But the Uyghurs were not necessarily “local.”

          • Insomnicide

            The true native people of Xinjiang were Indo-Europeans who voluntarily became subjects of the Han empire.

            After the Han empire became embroiled in the infamous Three Kingdoms civil war period, the Han army protecting the native population and the Han settlers travelled back to the capital region.

            The Turkic Uyghurs rode down from the Altay mountains and across the Tarim basin, slaughtering millions of Yuezhi natives as well as Han Chinese settlers. So you could say that the Uyghurs are true colonizers of Xinjiang.

          • Zappa Frank

            yes and han are colonizers of china since before there was just homo erectus and after there were other non-mongoloids..

          • whuddyasack

            If I’m not mistaken, didn’t the Chinese evolve from prehistoric peoples in that area itself? Every human came from some kind of homo erectus or neonderthal so that’s irrelevant as these are extinct.

            Of course the Chinese Mongoloid are the youngest race and before that, negroid, caucasian, australoid, malay races existed but that’s not their fault. Evolutions and adaptations is different from colonization.

          • Zappa Frank

            you are mistaken and also by far. the fact that insomnicide uped your post shows once more his ignorance on this topic.
            Actually the only theory considered by schoolars is the Out of africa. Homo sapeins evolved in africa and went out around 80-60kya. All genetic and archeologic evidences point in that direction. There may have been a minimum genetic exchange with arcaic homo, but mostly it has been a total replacement.. actually the only genetic exchange notable is the one with neandethal (that DID NOT happen in europe since is present in the same way in all humans people out of africa, than it happened after the out of africa, while all the non-african population were one) and the mysterious Denisova (that even if we just found rest in the altai mountain the highest level of his dna is in the papuasians, while almost the same for all the other non-africans). Still in total we talk about a 5% max of arcaic genes in our DNA. No genes of H.erectus result till now. Ergo, chinese do not come from Erectus of the Zhoukoudian cave, even chinese scholars recognize it now (after decades where they pretended to be ancestor of h.pekinensis). What i was talking regarding homo sapiens non-mongoloid in china is that the most ancients homo sapiens found in china, (still in the zhoukoudian cave, upper 1) do not show any mongolic-traits.. so we could even discuss if the first colonizers of china where chinese or not…
            but that points are just to point out the irrelevance of the “ancestral home” theory that you like so much and use to justify what actually happen in xinjiang.
            Please stop with this “race” thing, except for you two it is not used anywhere. Anyway, please show me how the chinese “race” is the youngest.. seems to me you know little since till now you thought chinese came from erectus..

          • Surfeit

            The “ancestral home” theory is daft in any case.

          • whuddyasack

            non-mongoloid in china is that the most ancients homo sapiens found in china, (still in the zhoukoudian cave, upper 1) do not show any mongolic-traits..

            Do they show Uyghur traits? I think the reason why they don’t show Mongolic traits is simple. Mongoloids are a recent development, and neo-mongoloids like the Chinese are even more recent. Proto-Chinese people don’t have to look Chinese to be Chinese, that’s why I think your argument of the first colonizers of China not being Chinese doesn’t make sense.

            Anyway, please show me how the chinese “race” is the youngest

            According to Futuyma from the University of Michigan, Mongoloids are 41,000 years old and Caucasians 110,000 years old. Negroids are older than both.

            Source: Futuyma, Douglas A. Evolutionary Biology. Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, 1983. p. 520

            Now East Asians are considered neo-mongoloids, their facial features a result of an ice age. The earliest unequivocal evidence for anatomically East Asian people on the Asian mainland remains at 7000 years ago which makes them the youngest race by far.
            http://www.peterbrown-palaeoanthropology.net/brown99.pdf

          • Zappa Frank

            Please, as resource you use a research of 1983? Are we joking? That is simply false, by many years is demonstrated that the out of Africa has been around 80ky and 60kya, therefore there was nothing like Caucasus race before, we were all one race (if you like to use this word since is not used in science), archeological and genetics evidences agree on that. This is he problem to discuss with someone who randomly use google but not study, you are using arguments that are by long time surpassed.

          • Yes!

            Sidetrack. Uyghurs don’t look Chinese at all, neither do they bear any resemblance to the Afghans, the latter whom look more like Pakis/Indians. Uyghurs look more European, well, the ladies do. See quite a lot of similar looking women in Harbin.

          • Jahar

            I thought the Uyhgurs showed up around 700AD.

          • Alex Dương

            Where? In what is now Xinjiang? The Dzungars were the majority population in Xinjiang in the 18th Century before 1758.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zunghar_Khanate

          • Jahar

            I’m just looking it up now. hard to get precise info.

    • niggaplz

      actually the problem is mainly economic. Han migrants are dominating the economy in xinjiang, their connections to the costal region makes it easier for them to operate business in xinjiang. And since hans are xenophobic, private han businsses will always hire han over Uyghurs.

      • Yes!

        I’m sure that’s a valid point. Perceived unequal economic opportunities then leads to resentment, which leads to petty conflicts, which snowballs into a Han vs Uygur thing. Vicious cycle. That said, the Han govt is in power, they decided to send the Hans into the region to level up the ethnic imbalance or develop the region, so the ball is in their court to set this right. Hence my point about the competency of the provincial/Beijing govt in handling this powder keg. Because it will become a Muslim vs Han thing, if it hasn’t already become one. As it is, Uyghurs have been accusing the Hans of “oppressing their religion and culture” more than citing “economic inequity” to explain their discontent.

  • Mighty曹

    One would think security has been heightened at transportation hubs after the recent Kumming Railway Station knife attack.

    • Archie

      It “had” been, and then untightened.Lasted about two weeks. And when I say tightened, they had pre-pubescent girls dressed in security guard uniforms inspecting ID cards. Very tight security.

      • Mighty曹

        Putting young girls in tight fitting uniform provides ‘tight security’. lol

  • FYIADragoon

    The fact the first post places the party before the people (in both Chinese and English) tells you a lot about how brainwashed he is.

    While these are starting to seem more and more like terrorists receiving training from Islamic terrorist groups looking to expand into China, from what I had heard from my friends who are from Xinjiang is that the Chinese government has not done a very good job of respecting the ethnic culture of the region. Although its always been pretty obvious their actual goal is to just flood the region with Han Chinese. These bombings are wrong, but a re-evaluation of their policies is in order.

  • Dr Sun

    The world is a troublesome place, we have most likely the entire Russian Federations “special forces” operating inside Ukraine as so called Ukrainian pro-Russian activists , the majority of US special forces acting as “advisors” in the middle East and the PRC special forces (Kungfu police) doing “policing” in Xinjiang. Its all the same, the same shit , ie killing many many innocent people, terrorizing a population to achieve their political goals..

  • Duke of Qin

    Everywhere the Muslims are a minority, they will claim they are being persecuted even as their numbers grow and demand others accommodate their own religious sensibilities. Everywhere they are a majority, non-Muslims are actively being extirpated until the only people left are Muslims, in which case they turn on their own and murder those of insufficient zeal. I had thought that like all such broad based religious revivalist movements before it, it would quickly burn itself out as the Iranian Shia revolution appears to have done, but the Sunni wave of religiosity has been steadily building for decades and has yet to reach its apex but is already exporting its violent dysfunction onto all of their neighbors.

    And so Jihad comes to China despite the efforts of the useless Communist Party. The Uighurs run riot in Urumqi and murder over a hundred Han and gang rape their women folk, this is because they are oppressed. Uighurs using machetes hack dozens of Han to death at a train station in Kunming, again this is because of repression. Now they bomb another train station in Urumqi; you guessed it, being oppressed. I don’t think anyone in the West still has any idea what actual
    repression is. Banning headscarves and forbidding Gulf sponsored clerics isn’t
    oppression, its merely discomfiting. The Chinese Communist Party in its heyday
    murdered millions of capitalists, reactionaries, counter-revolutionaries, and
    assorted enemies of the people without a blink. They are fraternal members of a
    global Marxist-Leninist vanguard party that has managed to notch up a body
    count of upwards of a hundred million. When it comes to mass killing, the Communist Party is truly without equal.

    Yet the Uighurs are apparently either ignorant of or undissuaded by this fact. The last time the Communists dealt with a troublesome internal Muslim population, they gave them an 5000 mile all expenses paid vacation to Siberia where half froze to death. The Taklimakan desert is in Xinjiang itself, so the Uighurs wouldn’t really have to go far from home to enjoy their own holiday. But of course the Chinese Communist Party today has mellowed in its old age and isn’t what it once was. It’s repression now consists of Chengguan bully boys and maybe a few dozen arrests which has solved and will solve nothing in Xinjiang. Actual repression, the kind that works, the kind that causes dramatic declines in non-Muslim populations of majority Muslim nations and an exodus of even millions of Muslims from their nations is now considered déclassé. And so the Uighurs will continue to slit Han throats without consequence.

    • Dr Sun

      sounds exactly like the history and persecution and eventual rise of the Lutherans/protestants in Europe and the excuses and propaganda that was used against them to me.All you have to do is replace the ccp with the catholic vatican, nobility and monarchs and you will find a club that has tortured and killed way more people than the cpc.
      Or take it a step further in how those once persecuted pilgrims then systematically wiped out the Indian nations in the “New World”
      Not that I’m excusing the CPC.

      • Reptilian

        Way more than the CPC? Really? More than the 30M+ starved in the Great Leap Forward, for example? Enlighten me on the others please.

        You can debate that torturing and killing are different from a disastrous economic policy, but there is no squirming your way out of the GLF being a deliberate act, a willful policy of the state, something that wasn’t stopped despite massive evidence that it was failing grandly. Not much different from Hitler’s Final Solution, in my eyes.

        • 白色纯棉小裤裤

          2 million children die in India each year. Multiply that number by 60 and go figure.

          The GLF had past a long time ago, however according to your theory what’s happening in India is an ongoing massacre, I guess you should be more concerned about that.

          • Reptilian

            Well, since you want to put up a smokescreen (ie., India) and try to whitewash the GLF by drawing a parallel in terms of mass deaths, let’s have a go at it: China accounts for 30%+ of the world’s cancer deaths. Of that, the no.1 cause is lung cancer. Who holds the tobacco monopoly in China (40% of world production volume)? Let’s talk about the other lung cancer source: coal residues. Whose policy was it to rely mainly on cheap coal as a raw material for generating electricity? I’d like to delve into liver and esophageal cancers, but you can use your Baidu and read up on the causes of the sharp spike in China post-1980, and from there make an educated conjecture as to what might’ve been the primary cause.

            Without having addressed the question of accountability for the GLF, you sought to put up a defense based on “India’s kids are dying too, go away and focus on those.” You merely brushed off the GLF as “past a long time ago”, and by that token, we should all just ignore the Rape of Nanking, because that happened much longer ago.

            Finally, there is a huge gap in children dying from poor postnatal health (1.4M out of the 2M figure die at birth or within 48hrs) and a state willfully starving its citizens as it pursues nationalistic hubris. Grain was exported to Africa even as people in China were tearing off tree barks and boiling leaves to eat. Also by saying “multiply that by 60”, you are trying to project that because of India’s negligence, 120M children have died. That is Central Propaganda Dept-level deception. The child mortality rates in India reach its current level only 5 years ago. Nice try, but you picked the wrong guy to try and hoodwink.

          • Dr Sun

            I never realised that the chinese govt forces people to drink and smoke, always figured it was a matter of personal choice.
            Also could you enlighten us as the reasons why India has such poor post natal health ? My guess is may have something more to do with corruption and policy, rather than choice.

          • What a specious argument. No, the Chinese gov’t does not force people to smoke, but it does willfully cash in on the Chinese habit, despite being aware of the stats on tobacco deaths. More tellingly, it prevents others to profit from the tobacco trade through its state monopoly. Smuggling tobacco in China today will net you no less than 4 years in prison. Revenue from the state tobacco monopoly can reach 8% of the tax take; in a trillion-dollar economy, that’s ginormous. As to coal, well, there really is no choice, is there? Could Chinese pick where there household electricity came from? But they have to live with the consequences.

            Corruption and poor policy implementation are quite different from egregious deception and manipulation. India talks openly about its failures, that’s one reason we know about it today. It also actively seeks to reverse those mistakes. Contrast that to the Great Leap Forward, tobacco and coal deaths in China, or even tweeting city air quality indexes, which cannot be discussed openly today without fear of a visit from your friendly neighborhood Gong An thugs.

          • Dr Sun

            what absolute rubbish, every govt around the world makes money from smoking through “taxes”. As for ” state monopoly”, many things are here you know. Btw what’s the role of the ATF and what does it stand for ? tobacco smuggling in the USA carries a penalty is 5 years, did you know that ?.
            Maybe also you unaware of the “economics”of China’s history, there was a very good reason for choosing coal- it’s cheap and china was poor.They are building nuclear power stations but its a slow process, also I doubt very much that they would want to become hostage to Russian natural gas.
            corruption and poor policy implementation in India is deception and manipulation.
            People talk daily, microblog daily about everything in China, you would know that if you lived here.

          • Alex Dương

            More tellingly, it prevents others to profit from the tobacco trade through its state monopoly.

            “ATF’s primary goal in tobacco enforcement is to enforce the federal laws relating to tobacco diversion and protect the revenue of the federal and state governments.”

            https://www.atf.gov/publications/factsheets/factsheet-tobacco-enforcement.html

            Of course, pointing out similarities between the Chinese and the U.S. governments is “diversion.” God, you are stupid.

          • You do realize there isn’t a tobacco monopoly in the States, and that there are hundreds of independent tobacco farms operating to supply small house brands? And that nobody goes to jail for selling their own tobacco today?

            Yes, your argument IS standard deflection yet again. Let’s assume hypothetically, for the sake of argument, that a similar government tobacco monopoly exists in the US. Does that exonerate the Chinese gov’t for profiteering from the tobacco business despite knowing full well its future impacts on society? No. It only means the US and Chinese gov’ts are both guilty of it. Your debating point, which you are always unable to see, is “They’re doing it too, why shouldn’t we? What’s wrong with that?” Good god, what a juvenile mind. How old are you anyway?

            Nice try though, Alex… I love your fighting spirit, but the debate has digressed too far from Xinjiang separatism and its causes. I’ll let you have the last word, to satisfy your tween adrenaline.

          • Alex Dương

            I’ll let you have the last word, to satisfy your tween adrenaline.

            Huh, that’s funny. I seem to recall you said this last time, and then you immediately couldn’t resist and came back. Anyway, buddy, it’s really funny to see you act like you’re so smart when in reality, you are nothing but a wannabe poser. I doubt you even graduated from college. Your thoughts are half-baked at best, and you can’t even connect dots that are like an inch apart. Having said this…

            Your debating point, which you are always unable to see, is “They’re doing it too, why shouldn’t we? What’s wrong with that?” Good god, what a juvenile mind. How old are you anyway?

            …yeah, my point is that you are pointing fingers at the Chinese for doing something that pretty much every government in the world does. How big of a tool do you have to be to think that you’re actually making a valid point by doing this?

          • 白色纯棉小裤裤

            ” Also by saying “multiply that by 60″, you are trying to project that because of India’s negligence, 120M children have died. That is Central Propaganda Dept-level deception. The child mortality rates in India reach its current level only 5 years ago. Nice try, but you picked the wrong guy to try and hoodwink.”

            Wrong.

            It is common sense that due to advancement in technology and improvement in living conditions, Child mortality rate can only decrease over time.

            120 M is an optimistic estimation because I neglected the change of the child mortality rate over time, which is a down sloping curve.

            The rest of your post is too long and its not wise to waste my time arguing with someone who lacks common sense.

        • Dr Sun

          I’m sorry but where exactly was I defending the great leap backwards or the CPC ? all I said was that persecution and genocide are not inventions of the CPC.The catholic/ christian churches have been practicing it since before the crusades , through the conquistadors annihilation of the native populations and up to the Nazis final solution.
          How many millions they killed over the years I have no idea, but does the body count matter ?

          • You were defending the Great Leap Forward by a method of argument called deflection. You showed this in two ways:

            a) the topic was about the CPC’s murderous policies, and you deflect attention by saying the CPC isn’t the inventor of genocide, and that other religious/political entities in the West before it were just as guilty. One does not have to be the progenitor of mass murder to be guilty of it. The Conquistadors, Catholic Church, Khmer Rouge, the Ottomans, were all guilty of this, yes—but so is the CPC. What is your point in consistenly bringing up the fact that we all know there were genocides before the Great Leap Forward? That we should somehow overlook it since the Commiechinks didn’t invent it?

            And yes, we should call events like the GLF murderous because they were conscious acts of state policy, not monumental failures due to incompetence, but proactive policies that continued to be propagated despite failure, ultimately ended badly and still wouldn’t be officially acknowledged today.

            b) by asking if the body count matters. In many ways, yes it does. I hope you aren’t trying to qualify mass deaths by saying x-number is below the official genocide threshold, and therefore that event wasn’t a genocide.

            Your last sentence was a pathetic attempt to cloak your argument in respectability, but it’s too late, Sun, too late.

    • whuddyasack

      Pretty much this. There is no reasoning with some of these extremists no matter what you do. They won’t be satisfied. Of course, it’s true that Uighurs resent “invaders” encroaching on their land and you can’t fault them for this as well as any initial prejudice held against them. But the terrorists are doing their ethnicity no favors either. I’m starting to think the problem will never go away even if they get complete autonomy or independence. I do think most Muslims won’t be satisfied until every nation on Earth becomes fully Muslim. In reality, there are many solutions but most can’t stomach the one solution that the Uighur terrorists have for those that disagree with them.

      • Mighty曹

        The suppressed people once given freedom always want more and can never be satisfied.

        • whuddyasack

          That’s true. I was thinking of India and Pakistan and Iran and Iraq. They all have complete sovereignty and nations to call home, yet there is no end to violence either.

          There is no denial that Uighurs are oppressed in some way. But just how oppressed are they in relation to everyone else? And why are they the only minority committing violence against civilians so frequently.

          • Yes!

            The big irony is that same Muslims somehow prefer to leave their sovereign homelands and Islamic societies to settle down in non-Muslim countries. enjoy all the niceties of advanced economies and social infrastructure and then when their numbers are sufficiently huge, turn their townships into Islamic enclaves, demand for Islamic political representation, Islamic Syariah laws with attendant Muslim police force and an Islamic way of life. Smack in the middle of Christian/Catholic societies.

          • whuddyasack

            It is ironic and bizarre. They quickly set up no go zones for non-Muslims and enforce them through violence and fear.

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574694/Bishop-warns-of-no-go-zones-for-non-Muslims.html

            On the very people that welcomed them in the first place.

  • Paulos

    Awful. Again. What a pointless waste of life.

    If these attacks were in fact carried out by an organized terrorist network, one has to question their strategy. I’m sure many people in China and around the world are sympathetic to causes related to religious freedom and minority rights, but targeting civilians pretty much burns any chance these people ever had at popular support while handing the party their casus belli in a gift-wrapped box.

    Had they chosen nonviolent resistance or at least limited the attacks to unpopular government targets like the Chengguan or Land and Resources Bureau, I’m sure the public response would be less hostile.

    • Chinese

      In the past, they have usually targeted police stations. Now its changed. But I can see that being a strategy to create more animosity between uyghurs and other people.

      The hatred will breed more extremists.

      • Paulos

        Which is a strategy I can understand within the context of the US/Al-Qaeda conflict, but not in China, though you may be right.

        If you are, it’s a loosing proposition for them. My guess is that these newly-bred extremists and anyone they associate with are about to become intimately familiar with their local PLA battalion.

        • whuddyasack

          It isn’t a losing proposition for them as long as most Chinese continue to believe in harmony and unity, while everyone else continues to support and justify the extremists as some sort of freedom fighters. All the recent attacks are looking more and more like your typical Jihad fanatic attack. I remember not too long ago, some people here even argued that the poor Uighurs can’t be part of a larger terrorist group because they had no fire power. These attacks serve the purpose of further alienating Uighurs from Han Chinese and thus increasing their forces. You’ve got to remember that fanatics no longer have anything to lose, only a goal to achieve.

          I often wonder exactly how oppressed these Muslims are. It seems that as long as they are the minority, they are perpetually oppressed and any sort of violence carried out on their part is justified. Yet in majority Muslim countries, no one bats an eye at the countless non-Muslims slain.

          Attacking innocents and making them fear for their lives is much more effective than you think. Look at parts of Thailand, or even Myanmar where Muslims have a stronghold and the local populace can’t even set foot.

          • Paulos

            Sorry, but I’m not sure I’m following you:

            Other than a few very sick puppies, there has been very little support for these attacks from anyone who isn’t a jihadist.

            Violence and human rights in the Islamic world are major issues in global politics and widely reported by the media.

            Thailand doesn’t have the military resources China has available to properly combat armed terrorists.

            I suspect the Muslim community in Myanmar is watching where they set foot much more carefully than their Buddhist compatriots.

          • Brian227

            I think you’re on a hiding to nothing quoting Myanmar in support of your thesis that there are Muslim areas where “the local populace can’t even set foot.” Leaving aside entirely the fact that in these places the Muslims are part of “the local populace”, in Myanmar the worst offenders have been Buddhists ethnically-cleansing local Muslims. They can’t very well do that if they don’t set foot in Muslim areas, can they?

          • whuddyasack

            the Muslims are part of “the local populace

            No, in Myanmar for instance these Muslims were illegal immigrants from Bangladesh who just happened to hop the border, grasshopper style. People from Bangladesh don’t even belong there, they belong in India. The worst offenders aren’t the Buddhists, all the problems started with coal-skinned Muslims who gangraped and killed a native Rakhine girl who couldn’t be older than 14. This led to the arrests of the 3 rapists and as usual, the Muslims rioted and murdered Rakhine villagers. That’s how the problem started.

          • Brian227

            The Muslims had been there for at least several generations, there are references to them in the records of the British colonial government.

            You’re very quick to tell people where they belong. Not where they were born, perhaps?

          • whuddyasack

            Of course, they were born there but their hearts were never there, if you look at their history. I have no problems with them belonging there if gang rapes of Buddhists, murder and rioting weren’t such a part of “their culture”. This suggests that they never once considered the native Burmese their equals or compatriots. They form enclaves and if any of their own are arrested for committing a crime, violence ensues. That’s how the current mess in Myanmar started. I’m shocked that Western media supports the Muslim crowd and takes the side of the Rohingyas.

          • Brian227

            If you look at their history, there were enough of them prepared to fight for the land they were born on. That doesn’t seem typical of people whose ‘hearts were never there’.

            You’ve overlooked that the native Burmese never let them join their communities and population movement was strictly controlled under the (native Burmese) military junta. Integration is a two way street.

          • whuddyasack

            It is a two way street. In 1942, tens of thousands of Arakanese villages were murdered by the Rohingyas after they received weapons from the British. Thousands… all modern race riots pale in comparison to this. They were given the weapons to resist Japanese invasion yet took the opportunity to slaughter civilians. What’s interesting was that Kayah tribes assisted Rakhine people in driving Rohingya militants out of the villages. Interesting considering the state of affairs today, and grievances many different ethnic tribes have with the junta.

            With this in mind, I think limiting the population movements especially from Bangladesh is prudent. Can Rohingyas really be trusted not to stab the native populace from behind when given the chance?

          • Brian227

            The Japanese (and us Brits too, it must be said) were experts at exploiting internecine divisions to shore up their rule – look at the Philippines – so not really surprising there was bad blood between peoples used to suppress revolt and the ones revolting. The source wasn’t ‘they’re Muslim’, though. It was land, resources and history same as in Xinjiang.

            You seem to be trying to have it both ways: the Rohingya are not really part of Burma yet can’t be trusted ‘not to stab the native population from behind’? If they’re not part of they can’t betray.

    • Insomnicide

      Uyghur terrorists are badly organized, they’re not a highly disciplined military unit. So these kind of reckless attacks are all they’re capable of.

      • niggaplz

        some uyghurs are going to Pakistan, Syria and Afghanistan to be trained. They then return and train other terrorists. It seems they have learned how to build explosive devices.

    • Jahar

      I don’t think they expect any kind of victory, just a “going down in flames” kind of attitude.

  • YourSupremeCommander

    For every Xinjiang extremist there are most likely 100,000 peace loving Xinjiang residents. Its awlays a few rotten apples that spoil the pot for everyone.

    • WFH

      then they need to police their own with extreme prejudice..

    • caspers

      How about if I say for every 100,000 peace loving muslim, there’s always an extremist that want to provoke their friends to think that every nonmuslm around them want to persecute them and they must not be friends with them…The problem is their religion, of course there are so many kind Muslims, i grew up in a Muslim majority country and i have lots of Muslim friends, even there’s once a Muslim family that helped us in a riots
      ..
      But that doesn’t change the fact that those extremist is being moved by the religion, it’s clearly stated in their book that they can’t be friend with infidels, must kill infidels, etc..

      The peace loving one is actually that not really following the religion… But the problem comes when the extremist one start to provoke them and make them believe in those conspiracy theory in the internet and start blaming everything on american and jews, in my country they blame minority and government…

  • Yes!

    Just 2 mths ago, there was a report of 400 over Uyghurs found in Thailand, apparently refugees or asylum seekers. Could there have been some form of ethnic cleansing or targeted victimisation in Xinjiang that we haven’t heard about that’s caused this backlash? Explosive times ahead for that region.

  • bujiebuke

    CCP propaganda of Chinese minorities as happy harmonious villagers who randomly break out in dance and song is fundamentally flawed and does nothing but fan the flame of bitterness and mistrust. The time for fair and equal treatment of minorities is long overdue.

    That said, the act of terrorism targeted at innocent civilians serves to undermine an otherwise a legitimate cause for independence. There’s no excuse for these horrific acts.

    • 白色纯棉小裤裤

      “The time for fair and equal treatment of minorities is long overdue.”
      What are you talking about? Minorities in China are treated much better than han Chinese.

      • bujiebuke

        The CCP has encouraging the Han to settle into Xinjiang by dangling favorable incentives while sidelining the Uyghur is one example. If you actually speak candidly to a minority in China, I guarantee you they do not appreciate being streamlined as cherubic dancing folksy people in your spring festival regala.

        • 白色纯棉小裤裤

          Could you be more specific? What does it mean by “sidelining” the Uyghur, and what are the “favorable incentives”.

          I actually have friends that are ethnic minority, I garantee you that no one would give a fxxk about how they are portrayed by CCTV. It didn’t bother me either when CCTV said I was happy, harmonious and loving the communist party.

          • bujiebuke

            Sidelining in this context means that the Uyghur minorities are not afforded or offered the same opportunities as other Chinese are. There are numerous articles about this issue including some well written ones from the Economist. If you’re genuinely interested, there’s a book titled Poverty and Exclusion of Minorities in China and India that you can start with, picking up the newspaper once in a while is another way.

          • 白色纯棉小裤裤

            The policies are biased in favour of ethnic minorities – Uyghur included. For example, the Government and state owned bussinesses are forced to hire a fixed proportion of ethnic monorities, students who are ethnic minorities receive bonus marks on Gaokao.
            Yes I do agree many Uyghur are in povetry, however if they have proper education and speak mandarin, the policies give them an advantage against han Chinese with the same educational background.
            Even in Canada or the USA, do you think someone who neither speaks English nor has a high school diploma is able to work for the government or find a decent job in a private company?

          • Chinese

            Well, forcing Uyghurs to learn mandarin would be “cultural oppression” again.

        • Insomnicide

          I guarantee you that the Han Chinese also do not appreciate having their culture and basic human rights suppressed in favour of ethnic minorities who have contributed far less to founding and development of the nation than the Han Chinese.

          • Jahar

            90% percent of the population has done more than the sidelined 10%? no kidding.

      • Blue

        Tell that to the Tibetans

      • Jahar

        This is the same shitty logic we use in regards to FIrst Nations Peoples in Canada. Give them stuff and everyone will be happy, right? Wrong. Stuff isn’t what they want. Respect, consideration, and the protection on their culture. They are being colonized, just in a more “peaceful” way than what we did.

    • KamikaziPilot

      Agree. I’m not too familiar with this situation but to me “terrorism” is an act of desperation and frustration. Many “terrorists” have legitimate gripes and throughout history civilians have been killed in conflicts but that doesn’t make it right. But then again oppressing a people who are almost powerless to stand up for themselves isn’t right either. A lot of times there really is no good guy or bad guy, just people using whatever means necessary to further their agenda.

      • YourSupremeCommander

        “just people using whatever means necessary to further their agenda”

        That’s been the case throughout the history of mankind. From the first caveman to Caesar to the Brits to the Xinjian extremists.

        • KamikaziPilot

          That’s exactly what I’m saying, don’t know why you needed to repeat it.

          • YourSupremeCommander

            Because you didn’t use those exact words.

      • ScottLoar

        “To me terrorism is an act of desperation and frustration”. So the terrorism of Al-Queda, by example, wanting to create an Islamic empire in the area and size of the Ottoman and return to a supposed golden age in the 7th century Arabian peninsula based on Wahhabism interpretation, is an act of desperation and frustration? Killing Shi’ites, Christians, Jews, Hindus – anyone who is not Sunni and of a particular interpretation as well – is an act of desperation and frustration and so understood, tolerated, and excused? IRA bombings in London are acts of desperation and frustration because it can’t have its way and so understandable? The Basque separatists are desperate and frustrated and so resort to terrorism? Buddhists slaughtering the Muslim minority in Burma, Hutu slaughtering Tutsi, have legitimate gripes and so gripes must be acted out in terrorism? “There really is no good guy or bad guy”, just a desperate and frustrated bomber, or people with arms and machetes lopping off the heads and limbs of others to force change through fear, eh?

        • Jahar

          He’s not saying the acts are justified, but some of their feelings are.

        • KamikaziPilot

          I never said terrorism is justified, although I don’t think a lot of the events that lead up to terrorism are justified either. Every act is different, not all terrorism is equal. Ex. Bin Laden himself gave reasons for disliking America’s foreign policy regarding Muslims. They support Israel, and when Israel continues to build settlements ever increasing their territory and institute blockades on Gaza crippling the population, basically being an occupying power despite most of the world’s condemnation, killing civilians, doesn’t that mean he’s frustrated and desperate? At least Bin Laden was honest about his intentions and stated that civilians are legitimate targets. How about Native American attacks on civilians due to their frustration about the British stealing their land, food, and killing their people if they resisted? Wouldn’t Allied fire bombing of Axis cities in WWII be considered terrorism? I place a high value on a people’s right to self-determination (however it might be defined), sometimes you have to do whatever it takes to accomplish your goals. I still stand by my opinion that it’s just not a black and white, right or wrong issue a lot of the time.

      • NeverMind

        Partially correct. But, among these ‘desperate people’ are those who are going to lose it if they smell Pork, see half-naked women or hear loud music. They want an exclusive land free of these polluting elements and they don’t mind blowing stuff for it.

  • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

    I can’t help but feel sorry for muslims and their reputation for being ‘belligerent suicidal terrorists’. It seems not matter where they go, the belligerent ones follow them and ruin everything.

    • Insomnicide

      Well there’s still the Hui, who are Muslim and have a very good reputation, both in and out of China.

  • yes, but a good uyghur is a dead uyghur

    • YourSupremeCommander

      LOL, so true!

      • Irvin

        Let’s go make them “good” lol

  • A Chinese child should’ve pissed on the fuse to deescalate the situation.

    • YourSupremeCommander

      Then all the HK assholes would get on a flight and come protest!

  • WFH

    why issit that Muslims and Satanists, and Anarchists all love death destruction so much??..I get it about the latter two…..sigh.

    • Blue

      Are you seriously grouping those 3 together??
      Islam is essentially a peaceful religion that is interpreted by some in an extremist way. Much the same as some Christians interpret the Old Testament. Muslims aren’t the only terrorists. Ever heard of the IRA? So heavily funded and supported by rich Americans until 9/11.
      Satanism is just a reactionary religion based upon the principles if anarchy: which isn’t a religion, it’s a philosophy.
      Pick a religion, any one, and you can find extremist groups who seek death and destruction as a means to an end.

      • Insomnicide

        Confucianism and Taoism. Lel.

        • Yes!

          Taoism will simply add Jesus Christ and Allah to their pantheon of gods. Then everybody can pray to all the gods. Taoism is truly the only religion of peace.

        • Blue

          Confucianism isn’t a religion. Taoism, I’ll accept, as I’m not aware of any extremism now or in the past. Generally speaking, pantheistic and paganistic religions are more accepting and respectful of other religions, as they have many gods, and are therefore willing to accept the possibility of more.
          However my general point still applies.

  • stevelaudig

    Answer this: How many Chinese die every day from the effects of pollution. Then ask yourself about how you define terrorism.

    • ScottLoar

      Okay.

      1) How many Chinese die every day from the effects of pollution? I don’t know, I doubt anyone does for sure, but a number without doubt. That’s a worldwide phenomenom, not particular to China.

      2) Define terrorism: Terrorism by definition is acts calculated to force reaction or change through fear.

      Now SteveLaudig, what’s your point? Equating pollution to terrorism doesn’t even make a convincing metaphor.

    • WTF

      What are you trying to get at here?… numbskull.

      Take a look at the pic above, that’s terrorism.

  • chandlerpatrick

    I am not a man of religious conviction. In fact, I think that the belief in a diety is a whole lot of gobbledygook. That being said, I won’t frown upon people who choose to believe in a god. If it makes their lives happier, and here’s the kicker, doesn’t harm anyone, then I could care less. I will even go as far as saying the many religous proverbs and teachings are things that we can all find value in. I don’t need to believe in a god to appreciate the messages in the Quran or Bible. A lot of it is just talking about how to lead a good life, be a better person, etc. It’s when you get butt-holes that think they have the best interpretation of the religion, that wars are started, and people die.

  • Yes!

    Jihadists believe that Muslims who inflict holy war on infidels (non-believers) and die while doing so will be rewarded with 72 virgins waiting for them in heaven.

    • Boris

      You edited your comment.

      “This has lead to the 72 virgins concept being widely used as a way to entice other Muslims into carrying out “martyrdom operations” for Islam.” – As protrayed by the media and propelled by people like yourselves who basically say the same thing over and over again. As they say, repeat it enough and people will believe it to be true.

      As for the site, “WikiIslam is a community edited website which focuses on the critique of Islam”. Biased much?

  • Irvin

    We don’t care if they’re threaten, we just want them eradicated/gone. Killing all muslims can do that.

    • Yes!

      You can’t kill all muslims, not in Xinjiang. China shares a very porous border with several muslim regions, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Krygzstan, Kazakhstan… you’re going to see a mass migration of muslim fighters into Xinjiang from further afield – Iran, Iraq, Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia and muslim Africa continent. Like bees to honey. All of 4 million PLA soldiers won’t be able to cope with them experienced and battled-hardened muslim brothers……Oh wait, maybe setting off another landbased nuclear test in Xinjiang might do the trick.

      • Irvin

        I’m just explaining the one concept of execution to him, while one can be a warning to the rest another is the elimination of the problem.

        Weather it’s viable or not that’s another discussion.

  • James in China

    Uhhh, yes? The crusades we’re absolutely begun by people of abrahamic religions…. did I misread what you wrote, or are you the least informed person in the world?

  • Insomnicide

    The only weapon you need is faith in the emperah, son.

  • JayJay

    Targeting ordinary Chinese is baffling as the Chinese public is not really responsible for this government… nobody voted for Xi Jinping or the CCP…

  • Francisco De Vitoria

    BONZAI!

    • YourSupremeCommander

      LOVE DAT CLEAVEGE!

  • Alex Dương

    No, it’s false. Tibet and Xinjiang were a part of the Qing Empire, and the Republic of China succeeded the Qing Empire. At no point in modern (post-1911) Chinese history did China, be it the ROC or the PRC, ever withdraw its claims to either Tibet or Xinjiang.

    And in the case of Tibet, the 9th Panchen Lama supported the KMT, and the 10th Panchen Lama was actually chosen by the KMT. Ironically, the 10th Panchen Lama chose not to go with the KMT to Taiwan and instead backed the CCP and supported the PRC.

  • Alex Dương

    I personally am a minarchist, not an anarchist, but still – when Yes! criticizes the PRC for trying to suppress freedom of speech in Hong Kong but then suggests that they consult Singapore, I can’t help but point out how ironic this is.

    • Yes!

      You got that part wrong, I didn’t criticise PRC for suppressing freedom of speech in HK. I criticise PRC mainly for its social values, system of governance, and mainlander culture. Freedom of speech is a nebulous thing. There is some form of “suppression” on freedom of speech in S’pore, depending on what subject matter, but there is a lot more of public criticism of government policies being allowed here than in PRC. In Singapore, nobody gets taken away at midnight for criticizing the govt. The govt’s stand is freedom comes with responsibility, so you may speak freely but do so responsibly, if you accuse the govt of any wrongdoing especially where it’s defamatory, govt officials have the right to seek redress through the courts. That’s where one gets the impression that freedom of speech is curtailed in S’pore. Of course, that puts some pressure on us to be careful of what we say. On the issue of inter-religious relationships, the laws in S’pore not so much as suppress freedom of speech as set the boundary as to what you can or cannot say about other peoples’ religion. This came about because of very aggressive proselytisation campaigns by certain Christian groups who had gone around public housing estates openly condemning families for practising other religions, calling others “devil worshippers” and attempting to convert them to Christianity, which had angered many people and raised tensions between the different races and religious groups. The 1964 racial riots between Chinese and Malay Muslims experienced by S’pore was the reference point for the Inter-Religious Harmony Law. So, basically, you do not have the freedom to go around telling a Muslim that Jesus Christ is the true son of God and Muhamed is a fake and fraud or vice versa. This could get you into trouble for offending religious sensibilities that could lead to violent riots. (See how Muslims and Hindus burn kill and pillage each other in India? And between Muslims and Christians/Catholics in Indonesia?) The freedom to condemn another religion and cause riots, well, S’poreans can do without that. Christian pastors from Australia trying to do their stuff in S’pore have been warned to lay off their method of proselytising or face deportation. The same thing applied to some Middle-Eastern muslim preachers. It’s a good thing. I cannot think of another government that has the political will to enforce such limits on “freedom” of speech. It’s good for society, it’s good for mutual respect, it’s good for stability which is good for economic development, so no apologies for this.

      • Alex Dương

        Correction accepted. As I said, I think China can (and should) consult / learn from Singapore on this. I just wanted to be clear that applying lessons from Singapore may entail continued or increased suppression of freedom of speech. If you’re OK with that, then fine.

      • Reptilian

        I think you framed Singapore’s strict laws on religious proselytizing wrongly. Draconian as they may seem, they actually have the opposite effect of repression of free speech, which is to ensure religious pluralism/freedom, and to tell each religion’s practitioners that it’s not ok to impose on others their own beliefs. It’s more like a promotion of “responsible speech.” You have no need to apologize. It’s just that Alex Dương likes nitpicking.

  • Derek Ho

    回復 drspringroll #1 的帖子

    不赞成这类极端的恐怖行为。

    新疆被汉人进住,几十年来越来越多的汉人已造成汉人比新疆人更多了。。。。。。新疆人的生活被影响,好的发展机会都给了汉人。。。。。。
    我不评对错。

    香港97 后也是被施以类似的汉化,越来越多中国人进来住。。来玩。。。中国教育过来香港发展的。。。。。土生土长的香港人和中国共产党教育来港人仕的比例会越来越接近吧。投票也会越来越倾向中国化吧。。。。。所有的发展机会都给予中国过来的。。。或类似新疆人所受的。。。。。。
    香港人如何回应?

    新疆人可能很多放面都比不上香港人。。。。。。这些行为是他们的回应? 那香港到了那阶段会如何呢? 在不久的将来肯定会有,比如说发展机会只给孝顺中国政府的人。。。。。。

    ??

    How would you feel a different ethnic group came to you city and take control of the way around, change education ,change language, give opportunity to their own ethnic, suppress the original ethnic group,? For years and years and years, ……. How do you feel?

    As for Chinese, is use to be slavery to the control body. Hundreds years of history war amongs ethnic, for now the Hans way is the way of china. History book tell the Chinese children china are united. ( don’t think it mention the sacrifice of other culture, language, living way, ethnic principle/believe……etc for united to speak mandarin…..burn all criminal records, war time records, bad history records, and only leave those book who talk good about history…..not reality…I think that was done by the emperor who so call united china. ).

    Terrorist is an act no civilian can accept, Think of this, aren’t all the Hans that has been migrating to xinjiang not a threat to the original ethnic group? Xinjiang choice is only china communist way of living and believe, or being suppress. As ethnic migration has been on for many years which plan by the central government. Do u think those ethnic Hans migrate to xinjiang for the poor area or central governor meant would have promise ethnic Han people something like employment, job, money, benefits…….etc. what left for the xinjiang people?

    Don’t u think this is an long term act of terrorist towards xinjiang people?

    Again , I am hate terrorist act. But for xinjiang parole is either bow to the pressure of central government or being out of the xinjiang equation because the ratio of ethnic Han will be more than the xinjiang people soon in xinjiang. Or it could already more by now.

    Not everyone prefer rich , city life , all our living standard…….xinjiang people love nature, easy life, no pressure, tree sky river………but are force to change to how standard life to be …..

  • mike921

    Communism, Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics, Lil’ Kim and the Norks – the true threat, the true enemy – Islam. East and West should put their minor differences aside and team up to defeat the real enemy. Unfortunate to lump all the Muzzies together, but the ‘moderate’ Muzzies refuse to stand up and deal with their radical brethren, so…..

  • Insomnicide

    Right, so why do Uyghus own Xinjiang when the natives of Xinjiang were Indo-European?

    • Zappa Frank

      why do chinese own china while natives where erectus?

  • Irvin

    You getting SMART!!!

  • Alex Dương

    I did not say Xinjiang is Chinese because it was a part of Tang China in the 8th Century. I said it is Chinese because it was a part of Qing China from 1758 to 1911, and the Republic of China succeeded the Qing as per succession of states.

  • Alex Dương

    No. As I mentioned elsewhere, while the Chinese definitely colonized Xinjiang, the Uyghurs are not necessarily indigenous. Xinjiang became Chinese after the Qianlong Emperor committed genocide against the Dzungar people in the 18th Century. The Uyghurs settled into the area along with Han and Hui afterward.

  • Alex Dương

    The Dzungar people who were the majority group in the region in the early to mid 18th Century were of Mongolian, not Turkic, origin. The Qianlong Emperor committed genocide against that people in the process of incorporating Xinjiang into the Qing Empire. Uyghur, Han, and Hui people subsequently moved in.

  • JohnnyBoy

    what responses? i only had one response, which was you, my dear friend.

  • AB

    “Religion of peace” at work.

  • TAKE5

    What a tragedy. I feel sorry for the innocent people who that nothing to do with why this group is attacking. Why up till now have the Chinese been able to prevent this? I hope they can figure this out and get a handle on it, I somehow doubt they will. We had plans to visit that part of china next trip, not going to happen now.

  • Reptilian

    Let the natives have a referendum on whether to secede or stay part of
    China. Problem solved. *If only Beijing would allow it.

  • Reptilian

    Horrors! Learn from the inferior dark-skinned brothers? They’re supposed to learn from China, not the other way around.

  • Yes!

    I’ll post this for all:

    “The Communists also criticized the nationalist anthropologistswho had been cooking up theories of racial distinction. Mao promised independence to China’s ethnic minorities upon assuming power in 1949 and a few years later warned against ‘Han chauvinism’………..Once settled in power, the Communists broke their promises of independence for minorities…..The Beijing authorities have sent tens of thousands of Han Chinese to live and work in Tibet and Xinjiang, calculating that this demographic shift will strengthen their hold over these strategically important regions. This influx, combined with preferential official treatment for the incomers, helped spark race riots between Uighurs and Jan in the Xinjiang capital of Urumqi in 2009. It is true that some affirmative action policies for minorities, remnants of the Communists early policy of multi-culturalism, continue. The official rhetoric of harmony in diversity also lingers on, as when some minority children were paraded at the opening ceremony of Beijing’s 2008 Olympics.But the phoniness of these exercises were perfectly illustrated when it turned out that the colourfully dressed minority children who trooped through the Bird’s Nest stadium that night were, in fact, Han actors.”
    ……………
    “The modern Chinese narrative on blood and soil is, as we have seen, confusing and contradictory. The Chinese people seem to be simultaneously sons of the dragon, sons of the Yellow Emperor, and also descendants of Peking Man. And while not everyone in China is of the Chinese race, all the territory of modern China is, apparently, inherently ‘Chinese’……..The Tarim mummies are a good example. Beijing claims that the Han Chinese had a presence in the sprawling Western province of Xinjiang dating back 2,200 years. But in the twentieth century archaeologists discovered a cemetery in the Tarim Basin of Xinjiang containing bodies that were 4,000 years old. Furthermore, it was observed that their features looked rather more European than Oriental. Genetic tests on the bodies have suggested that the mysterious tribe indeed had Western origins……..The present Uighur inhabitants of Xinjiang only arrived in the ninth century AD, but the Tarim mummies nevertheless threatened to provide fillip to their modern separatist movement. In 2011 a Chinese touring show of the US called ‘Secrets of the Silk Road’, exhibiting the Tarim mummies were abruptly curtailed. The show organisers cited the fragile condition of the bodies, but the strong suspicion was that someone in Beijing had decided that this remarkable archaeological discovery, which shed light on the early history of the disputed region of Chinese territory, should receive no further publicity.”

    – Chinese Whispers, by Ben Chu, 2013

  • Rou Zhen

    Pakistan is still best friend to all Chinese, even more so than Persians, no matter what white media paint, very sorry, Muslims in general and China are good friends, and will remain so, regardless of Western smear tactics

    • Why are the stupidest comments always made by anonymous twerps without accounts? They pop out of nowhere, make the stupidest statement imaginable, and then you wonder whether it’s even worth responding to them because they probably won’t even receive an email update.

  • Eidolon

    Other countries lacking a ‘valid historical claim’: America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, all of South America, and those are just the recent ones.

    The Romans failed to keep a hold of what became Germany, sure, but the Germans didn’t fail to conquer that territory from the Gauls!

Personals @ chinaSMACK - Meet people, make friends, find lovers? Don't be so serious!»