maybe you like your definition better but not everyone is gonna go with that. a lot of americans consider the attack on the marine barrack that killed 200+ marines a terrorist attack, and the attack on USS cole as well. its okay to have a definition for this stuff but you have to be flexible with it like the politicians do
PLA soldier shot in Terrorist attack
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
maybe you like your definition better but not everyone is gonna go with that. a lot of americans consider the attack on the marine barrack that killed 200+ marines a terrorist attack, and the attack on USS cole as well. its okay to have a definition for this stuff but you have to be flexible with it like the politicians do
its not like they havent killed enough civilians last year in Lhasa
they do it simply to attract foreign attention. there is no hope for them to win a PR war within China's borders
For one thing, gun control is very strict in China, shooting incidents occur very rarely, it's not like in North America where you have several random shootings a day.
Even criminals in China are quite pragmatic, whatever they do have to serve a purpose and they usually try to keep the events outside of public notice, this kind of attacks are extremely unlikely to be the work of criminals.
No offense, but this seems to be a naive view of terrorism, the fact is these shootings does create terror, which destabilizes the society.
Now with that in mind, the terrorist can send their demands directly to the government without exposing it to the public, the biased attitudes and media control of the western media and government will severely cut down the credibility of any Chinese claims, therefore allowing the terrorists to achieve their goal without identifying themselves.
Pla gives a good example, many civilians were murdered, civilian properties worth millions were destroyed, and this was all broadcast as "peaceful demonstration for freedom".
Last edited:
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Sorry no Tibetan or their supporters admit that any innocent civilians were killed by Tibetans during the riots. If they're committing "terror" just as as an act of blood-thirst against the Chinese, that goes against the entire romanticized propaganda of the non-violent peace-loving Tibetans. That is the only propaganda out there that gives them support. They don't admit that Tibetans savagely killed innocent civilians during the riots last year because it would give justification for action against them. Right now they're riding on the propaganda that the only ones committing violence is from the Chinese side. So if it were Tibetans that committed this murder, it was simply out of their own racism and no one that supports the Tibetan movement is ever going to admit to it. So what was the point of killing this guard if it was political in nature because all it says is a murder took place which goes against everything Tibetans supposedly stand for? The only thing it tells the world is Tibetans lie about how peaceful they are. It works against them.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Sorry most criminals are dumb. It's pretty naive to think because there was a murder, it was only meant to create terror. His machine gun was stolen. If he was guarding a garrison why didn't the "terrorists" go in for more than just one gun. China is still a poor developing country. Crime happens! Strict gun laws only means you have a likely motive since a machine gun is more valuable item in the black market.
Do you think that because China is a police state that crimes are rare? I've read plenty of stories of people getting murdered in China without the use of guns in a much more horrifying way.
So why would it panic China over this one murder? You just said all of this is not exposed to the public which contradicts your scenario. Thsi is being reported in China. If China were in paralyzing panic over this then why am I not seeing this on the news. There's already terrorist bombings happening in Northwest China and yet life goes on and no panic.
I had a Republican I know try to scare me into voting for McCain by claiming that chances are I would die sometime in my lifetime from the hands of a terrorist. When I bursted out laughing he had that neo-con look that I was unpatriotic for not panicking. He was incensed that I wasn't in fear for my life. I told him that I had a better chance getting killed by a Klansman than a Islamic terrorist and you're not in a panic over that.
Are you American? Because I only find Americans that narcissistic enough to panic over something where no terrorist group or organization has made no attempt to take responsibility. So far nothing you claim would happen is happening in China. Don't see Chinese in panic or crying themselves to sleep at night worried that they're going to be killed by a terrorist the next minute. That would be big news in the US. Do you actually think Beijing is working behind the scenes negotiating with terrorists? So is China planning to hand over Tibet because we know that has to be the terrorist demand or they'll kill more people. Innocent civilians were already killed in the Tibet riots last year. Why hasn't Tibet been freed as of yet? What is Beijing waiting for if they're so concerned for and of the public that they would bother negotiating with terrorists?
Dumb criminals don't last long in China, majority of them are stomped out by organized criminals, others by the police.
From the information currently released it seems the purpose of the shooting was to kill a few unarmed(as in not carrying usable firearms) PLA soldiers.
Crimes do happen, but the purpose is generally to make money, whether it's pickpocketing or drug dealing, attacks on PLA soldiers hardly serve any economic purpose.
I never said crimes are rare, I said shootings are rare, especially shootings on PLA soldiers.
I never said China was in a panic, the entire country would of course be concerned but I specifically said the "local population".
I said the demands of the shooter(s) might not be released, I presented a likely example on why the shooter(s) didn't make their demand public, I didn't say the whole event was being covered up.
Terrorist bombings do happen and if you agree this is a similar situation then I have no objection, my original point was that this attack can be considered a terrorist attack.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
So there are no such thing as lesser criminals in China? No thieves or petty thugs that rob people in China? That's hard to believe that the only criminals in China are organized. There was a Canadian model that was robbed and killed in Shanghai last year. The police caught the man with her belongings in his possession. Are you saying that was his first time robbing someone? How do we know it's not one of his fellow soldiers with a personal grudge? He would have a gun to shoot him.
Have they arrested someone to get that information? Because if they haven't how would they know?
Like I pointed out before not all crimes are out to make money or commit terrorism. There are personal crimes of passion too.
What is terror and destablization then? "Concern" is whole lot different than being terrorized and watching society fall apart.
Of course bombings happen and you don't see China destabilize and turn to panic so easily. Are you saying this shooting is worse than a bombing? Last year there was a police station attacked and several policemen were killed in Xinjiang. Didn't see Chinese huddle into dark corners from that either. And the government reported that one as a terrorist attack.
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
Well, destabilizing the target society may be the penultimate goal for a terrorist organization, but individual attacks simply do not tend to carry such weight. Even after the 9/11 attacks, you can hardly say that the US was destabilized. Sure, some people were shocked and a lot of Americans were pissed off. But life went on.
i think you lack the basic understanding of terrorism. terrorist attacks arent solely committed to "instill fear". in a lot of cases they are carried out to provoke a reaction from the government, and there are so many other ways of getting their points through. i'd say the Tibet incident was an act of terrorism, they did whatever they did to provoke a reaction from the Chinese government, in turn savaging the olympic game. luckily that didnt work, but if it did it would have been very very ugly.