wat0n wrote:So in this scenario there would be no Chinese response it because, in your view, it couldn't, not because it wouldn't.
You're treading very close to "they attacked us because they hate our freedoms".
The main point here is that there would be no Chinese response because China doesn't and wouldn't engage in an immoral and imperialist foreign policy that would trigger a 9/11 style attack in Beijing in the first place. The Saudi hijackers behind 9/11 were using it as a response to American-style hegemony (interference in the internal affairs of other states and uncritical support for Israel), a hegemonic model that China wholeheartedly rejects.
wat0n wrote:The funny thing is that China at some point did conquer the Xinjiang region (the 18th century, I think)
Yes, in 200 BCE.
wat0n wrote:so most of the things you accuse the US of were already done when China became the PRC - several centuries ago.
When we critique the US for its treatment of Native Americans, we are told "it's all in the past while China's crimes are contemporary". Now that it's convenient, we'll go ahead and complain about the Han Dynasty's conquest of Xinjiang, an act that's contemporary with the Roman invasion of Ancient Macedon.
Around the time of the Mongols, the region became part of a series of central Asian khanates, but still was related to the khanate in China itself, and had plenty of interactions with the Ming. The Chinese presence and influence in Xinjiang, at any rate, far predates the arrival of the Uyghurs in the 16th century. The Qing did enter the region in force again in the 18th century (before the United States was even a country), at the request of the Uyghur princes mind you, to get rid of the Dzungarians.
wat0n wrote:I don't see why couldn't China be attacked by islamists in the future
Sure. Also an asteroid might fall in Xi'an, aliens might land in Chengdu, a nuclear war could erupt over Taiwan, and other situations removed from reality.
The facts are, based on the organizations that exist today, and based on Chinese foreign policy as it exists today, that any extant multinational terrorist organization (outside of ETIM) has any interest in, or capacity to, perpetrate these attacks of mass terror in Bejing or any other significant Chinese city.
Unthinking Majority wrote:Prison camps designed to commit genocide against innocent people within a hated ethnic minority by a totalitarian dictatorship doesn't sound like fascism at all.
1) China's policy is against Islamism, not the Uyghurs. The Uyghurs are not a "hated minority" in China, by any stretch of the imagination - Uyghur artists are widely popular and celebrated, as is Uyghur food and culture. There are four Uyghur restaurants on my street alone.
2) If we're going to talk about the injustice of the mass imprisonment of a hated ethnic minority, Americans would do a lot more good looking inward at opportunities for reform than trying to manufacture consent for a new cold war.
Unthinking Majority wrote:flying war planes through their airspace
Not a single Chinese plane has violated Taiwanese airspace. The last violation of Taiwanese airspace or territorial waters was a single cruise missile during the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1996, which landed 1nm within the territorial waters of Taiwan. Why make shit up?