Blackstone
Brigadier
The article only said Shiite militia forces received some Chinese made assault rifles, and nothing about China sending them. It's entirely possible said rifles came from different sources, with China as original manufacturer.
Possible Chinese involvement in fighting ISIS
- Thread starter usaf0314
- Start date
- Status
The article only said Shiite militia forces received some Chinese made assault rifles, and nothing about China sending them. It's entirely possible said rifles came from different sources, with China as original manufacturer.
I've always thought that the best way to fight terrorism is to be play defensive aggressive.
Allow me to elaborate.
Firstly, countries like the US, China, or European countries, should focus inwards and make sure our own citizens are not victims of terrorism.
Secondly, we should invest and help the troubled states in the Middle East to improve their economies. Trade with them. Do business with them. Invest in infrastructure, invest in oil fields, mines. Just like what China did in Afghanistan. Build schools, nurture young kids, build roads, hospitals, spread modern culture and civilisation there.
Don't just kill and anger them. Make ordinary people rich, influence the neutral parties. Win over as many neutral ones as possible.
There's an ancient Chinese saying, "to put off the cooking fire you'll have to take away all the firewood".
In this case the "firewood" is poverty. I believe that Islam is not the real problem. I've had great friends who are Muslims, and they are some of the most peaceful and friendly people I've encountered. In fact, in a country like Singapore where GDP per capita is one of the highest in the world, it's hard for any fundamentalist or extremist ideology to grow and proliferate.
The more the world bombs them indiscrminately, the easier it is for terrorists to brainwash new ones to join them.
I'm not saying that we should go soft on terrorists, just suggesting a different approach.
There's yet another ancient Chinese saying, it's actually a sentence from a poem, it goes like this "the grass on the plain cannot be burnt down by wild fires, as the wind of spring blows by they grow out again."
If you don't tackle the root cause, which in this case is ignorance and poverty combined with dangerous ideology, then you can't really "burn down the grass".
Allow me to elaborate.
Firstly, countries like the US, China, or European countries, should focus inwards and make sure our own citizens are not victims of terrorism.
Secondly, we should invest and help the troubled states in the Middle East to improve their economies. Trade with them. Do business with them. Invest in infrastructure, invest in oil fields, mines. Just like what China did in Afghanistan. Build schools, nurture young kids, build roads, hospitals, spread modern culture and civilisation there.
Don't just kill and anger them. Make ordinary people rich, influence the neutral parties. Win over as many neutral ones as possible.
There's an ancient Chinese saying, "to put off the cooking fire you'll have to take away all the firewood".
In this case the "firewood" is poverty. I believe that Islam is not the real problem. I've had great friends who are Muslims, and they are some of the most peaceful and friendly people I've encountered. In fact, in a country like Singapore where GDP per capita is one of the highest in the world, it's hard for any fundamentalist or extremist ideology to grow and proliferate.
The more the world bombs them indiscrminately, the easier it is for terrorists to brainwash new ones to join them.
I'm not saying that we should go soft on terrorists, just suggesting a different approach.
There's yet another ancient Chinese saying, it's actually a sentence from a poem, it goes like this "the grass on the plain cannot be burnt down by wild fires, as the wind of spring blows by they grow out again."
If you don't tackle the root cause, which in this case is ignorance and poverty combined with dangerous ideology, then you can't really "burn down the grass".
usaf0314
Junior Member
The head of these terrorist organizations are hardly suffering from poverty. Its the people they control. of which are uneducated, brainwashed and live in constant fear. The best way to control a group of people is to keep them away from knowledge and outside influence. Repeat a lie enough times, people will believe it to be true. Its not just Islam, this has also been used by Christianity and many other religions in human history.
It seems that China is willing to at least consider protecting its interests abroad. Apparently PRC is about to send additional troops to aid the UN peace keeping units in Sudan.
solarz
Brigadier
I think there are lessons we can draw from the Crusades. Both the medieval crusades and the current Islamic Jihad draws from masses of disenfranchised but zealous believers.
The medieval crusades ended partly out of military failure, and partly because people just stopped having interest in them. Unfortunately, this process took 200 years, so there are no simple answers.
Not really sure if this should be posted here or on the main ISIS thread, but decided on here, so here goes......
This really picks up on earlier comments on China only being prepared to act within the framework of the Regional Security Organisations of which it is a member. This is a lead in that direction and is I suppose a look at what is not impossible from its Regional Security Partners and; from that, a scenario in which Chinese involvement is not impossible.
When we talk about China's Regional Security partners we are of course mainly discussing Russia and that leads to Russia's connections to Iran and of Syria.
So here we are; post Ukraine, and the US forming a coalition of the willing to bomb ISIS both in Iraq; with the support/blessing of the Iraqi government and Syria; without permission from either Damascus or the UN. In addition the US is bombing other groups other than ISIS of which it also disapproves
We have then three precedents:
1) To form an offensive coalition without a UN mandate
2) To attack the territory of a nation state without that states permission
3) To expand the target list away from the single organisation used as justification (which opens the door to further expansion later).
Nothing to my mind would illustrate the reality of a multipolar world better than a very overt demonstration of sauce for goose being sauce for the gander.
To that end, I see no reason why Russia could not form its own coalition of the willing and China be a member of it. Such a coalition could operate with the invitation of the Syrian (and Iraqi) governments and work independently against IS targets, but of course co-ordinating with Syrian Ground Forces to ensure that the air strikes have real tactical and strategic purpose. It would of course be possible to also expand towards bombing other groups such as FSA under the same conditions.
The big advantage of such a Eurasian coalition would be to help secure Syrian sovereignty by denying the US coalition Air Supremacy over Syrian Air Space and of course, help prevent "drift" away from bombing IS and Alqidea and towards Syrian State forces.
A year ago such a scenario may have seemed fanciful, but post Ukraine I suspect many elements could well be on the cards!
This really picks up on earlier comments on China only being prepared to act within the framework of the Regional Security Organisations of which it is a member. This is a lead in that direction and is I suppose a look at what is not impossible from its Regional Security Partners and; from that, a scenario in which Chinese involvement is not impossible.
When we talk about China's Regional Security partners we are of course mainly discussing Russia and that leads to Russia's connections to Iran and of Syria.
So here we are; post Ukraine, and the US forming a coalition of the willing to bomb ISIS both in Iraq; with the support/blessing of the Iraqi government and Syria; without permission from either Damascus or the UN. In addition the US is bombing other groups other than ISIS of which it also disapproves
We have then three precedents:
1) To form an offensive coalition without a UN mandate
2) To attack the territory of a nation state without that states permission
3) To expand the target list away from the single organisation used as justification (which opens the door to further expansion later).
Nothing to my mind would illustrate the reality of a multipolar world better than a very overt demonstration of sauce for goose being sauce for the gander.
To that end, I see no reason why Russia could not form its own coalition of the willing and China be a member of it. Such a coalition could operate with the invitation of the Syrian (and Iraqi) governments and work independently against IS targets, but of course co-ordinating with Syrian Ground Forces to ensure that the air strikes have real tactical and strategic purpose. It would of course be possible to also expand towards bombing other groups such as FSA under the same conditions.
The big advantage of such a Eurasian coalition would be to help secure Syrian sovereignty by denying the US coalition Air Supremacy over Syrian Air Space and of course, help prevent "drift" away from bombing IS and Alqidea and towards Syrian State forces.
A year ago such a scenario may have seemed fanciful, but post Ukraine I suspect many elements could well be on the cards!
Last edited:
Such a development will also open the way for building a railway from Tehran to the Mediterranean which wil help develop the economies of Syria, and likely Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and China. Iran is already building a railway into Afghanistan which will eventually meet one from China.
不，中国很在乎的，每时每刻都在关注他们！因为他们的行为是反人类。所有人的公敌！只是中国的政策是不干预别的国家政治！如果isis侵犯中国或者他们寻求中国军事援助，绝对会出兵进攻他们。
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Neither Russia nor China have enough at stake in Syria for such an overt displace of force against the US and their 'willing' allies.
Considering that both sides would be deploying special forces on the ground covertly as part of such an operation, the odds of 'accidental' engagement and 'collateral damage' amongst opposing SpecOp units seems dangerously high.
Russia and China also do not have the foreign bases or power projection capabilities to deploy anything close to the forces the US and friends have in the region. That is a textbook example of military over reach, and would present the US with an enticing opportunity to exact some payback over Ukraine and whatever slights Obama feels China has dealt him.
However, I think the strongest argument against such a move on the part of Russia and China is the plain fact that more air power isn't what is needed to win this thing.
To truly defeat IS, you need boots on the ground to chuck some frag grenades down every hole and rock those guys will crawl into/under when the jets are overhead. That is going to cost a lot of money, lives and time. That brings us back to my first point, which is that neither Russia or China have enough at stake to warrant that level of commitment.
Hi Wolfie
I am sure that if they really wanted them, Iran and Syria would provide theatre facilities for a friendly coalition to operate in Syria and Iraq. Russia of course already has Tarsus in Syria.
Syria is more a realistic prospect than Iraq and the boots on the ground would be the Syrian Arab Army, who; unlike their Iraqi counterparts, have proven themselves an effective fighting force, despite all the disadvantages heaped on them.
Where there is a will there is a way and the way is certainly possible. The key really has to be the "Will" side of the equation and how Russia reacts to this current situation will be deeply instructive as to the true state of relations between the Eurasian powers and the West.
Of course if a Eurasian coalition was enabled, it would make sense for both the camps to demarcate their activities so that Eurasia worked with Syria, while the West worked with Iraq. If in the event, the West was reluctant to operate within such boundaries, then we would also have a insight as to the West's ulterior objective.
Verum
Junior Member
I highly doubt China will join. I agree with a lot of previous posts. China has non-intervention policy, it's so fundamental, it's almost like the 10 original amendments of the US constitution.
Even if China wanted to interfere, it would only be verbal, like making a stance, saying I'm in this camp now. At the most would be saying I'm fighting ISIS on my home soil.
China doesn't have the ability or logistics to maintain even an air operation in the Middle East, not to mention a long term bombing operation.
Even if China wanted to interfere, it would only be verbal, like making a stance, saying I'm in this camp now. At the most would be saying I'm fighting ISIS on my home soil.
China doesn't have the ability or logistics to maintain even an air operation in the Middle East, not to mention a long term bombing operation.
- Status