PLA soldier shot in Terrorist attack

pla101prc · Mar 24, 2009

lol i doubt labeling this incident as "terrorism" is a result of carelessness or just downright autocracy in China. you really have to understand how things work in Chinese politics to discern the possible explanations.
first of all, the party-secretary of Chongqing is Bo Xilai, who is deem to be a likely candidate for the Politburo standing committee. so by acting tough on certain issues he is basically trying to demonstrate his "loyalty".(that's not to take away from this guy's competence...he is prolly more competent than most politicians in washington).

there is also the possibility that they already have unconfirmed intelligence of terrorists on the move beforehand. the attack was simply a confirmation.

the least probable explanation is that Bo Xilai simply asked the local triad leaders if they did it, when they ruled out the possibility of organized crime, they treat the incident as a terrorist attack.

The_Zergling · Mar 25, 2009

pla101prc said:
lol i doubt labeling this incident as "terrorism" is a result of carelessness or just downright autocracy in China. you really have to understand how things work in Chinese politics to discern the possible explanations.
first of all, the party-secretary of Chongqing is Bo Xilai, who is deem to be a likely candidate for the Politburo standing committee. so by acting tough on certain issues he is basically trying to demonstrate his "loyalty".(that's not to take away from this guy's competence...he is prolly more competent than most politicians in washington).

there is also the possibility that they already have unconfirmed intelligence of terrorists on the move beforehand. the attack was simply a confirmation.

the least probable explanation is that Bo Xilai simply asked the local triad leaders if they did it, when they ruled out the possibility of organized crime, they treat the incident as a terrorist attack.

The issue I was pointing out is not so much who did the attacking, but who was hit. I argue that soldiers getting killed while on duty, regrettable as it is, should not be defined as terrorism.

SampanViking · Mar 25, 2009

I tend to go with terrorism, why?

Criminals are only interested in money and not being arrested. The easiest way to avoid arrest is for no one to even realise a crime has been committed. Real crooks would find a way to secretly obtain weapons for use or resale.

In this instance, though the act of very publical and high profile attacking and killing an on duty soldier, and stealing his weapon is far more indiciative of a political act.

pla101prc · Mar 25, 2009

The_Zergling said:
The issue I was pointing out is not so much who did the attacking, but who was hit. I argue that soldiers getting killed while on duty, regrettable as it is, should not be defined as terrorism.

neither was i, read what i said carefully, its the inner bureaucracy that matters. or perhaps there is something we dont know. we cant simply assume that we are smarter than the government based on what limited resource we have. some ppl just have different ways of doing things

The_Zergling · Mar 26, 2009

pla101prc said:
neither was i, read what i said carefully, its the inner bureaucracy that matters. or perhaps there is something we dont know. we cant simply assume that we are smarter than the government based on what limited resource we have. some ppl just have different ways of doing things

I wasn't so much interested in who was doing the defining, rather with how it could be used. Basically, my fundamental problem was with defining the attacking of uniformed soldiers as "terrorism".

SampanViking said:
I tend to go with terrorism, why?

Criminals are only interested in money and not being arrested. The easiest way to avoid arrest is for no one to even realise a crime has been committed. Real crooks would find a way to secretly obtain weapons for use or resale.

In this instance, though the act of very publical and high profile attacking and killing an on duty soldier, and stealing his weapon is far more indiciative of a political act.

Yes, but as far as I have learned, the definition of terrorism is an attack made for political purposes against *civilian* targets.

This semantic argument isn't all that related to the topic per se; it's primarily related in that it affects the sort of measures a government is able to get away with, if the population accepts that framing.

bigstick61 · Mar 26, 2009

This really can't be considered terrorism. At the very least an attack on civlians is required, although there is more to it than that.

xywdx · Mar 26, 2009

I tend to look at the situation the other way, the attack terrified the local population, so the assailant is achieving his purpose through the use of terror and therefore it's fine to say it's terrorism.

This does emphasize the problem that many Chinese soldiers don't carry loaded fire arms because they are mainly active for ceremonial or rescue duties, and as such they are extremely vulnerable to attacks.

AssassinsMace · Mar 26, 2009

Why would it terrify the local population? People get murdered there like any place else. Terrorism works best against democracies. So far there has been no claim to the crime like a terrorist would. If it were "terrorism" by say Tibetans as some are suggesting, what purpose would it serve? Are they so naive to think if they kill Chinese civilians, the Chinese will all of the sudden side the Tibetan cause. It'll be the biggest mistake of their entire history and probably the end as well. But if it is "terrorists" then they are the most cowardly terrorists of all since they don't claim their deed. And if they're Tibetan, what's the point without claiming it because in the end they're just the murderous blood-thirsty scum they lie to world saying their peace-loving culture isn't all about.

adeptitus · Mar 26, 2009

Guerrillas and insurgents that operate without uniform, badge, and open display of arms is not entitled to fair treatment.

FriedRiceNSpice · Mar 26, 2009

AssassinsMace said:
Why would it terrify the local population? People get murdered there like any place else. Terrorism works best against democracies. So far there has been no claim to the crime like a terrorist would. If it were "terrorism" by say Tibetans as some are suggesting, what purpose would it serve? Are they so naive to think if they kill Chinese civilians, the Chinese will all of the sudden side the Tibetan cause. It'll be the biggest mistake of their entire history and probably the end as well. But if it is "terrorists" then they are the most cowardly terrorists of all since they don't claim their deed. And if they're Tibetan, what's the point without claiming it because in the end they're just the murderous blood-thirsty scum they lie to world saying their peace-loving culture isn't all about.

Well this was indeed perpetrated by terrorists, there is a possibility that it was carried out by Islamic separatists from Xinjiang.

PLA soldier shot in Terrorist attack

pla101prc

Senior Member

The_Zergling

Junior Member

SampanViking

The Capitalist

pla101prc

Senior Member

The_Zergling

Junior Member

bigstick61

Junior Member

xywdx

Junior Member

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General

adeptitus

Captain

FriedRiceNSpice

Captain