World News & Breaking News II

shen said:

Remember this, America release dozens of Xinjiang terrorists caught training in Afganistan. The official reason given is, and I kid you not, they were only training to attack China not the US.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that for a microsecond. Please link your source.

The Treasury Department explains: "Under Haq, trained terrorists planned to sabotage the Olympic Games by conducting terrorist attacks within China before the Olympics began."

Click to expand...

On September 30, 2008, Gregory Katsas, Assistant Attorney General filed a "notice of status" for the remaining Uyghur captives—stating that they would no longer be classed as "enemy combatants".

Click to expand...

The CSRT Procedures defined an 'enemy combatant' as: 'an individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al-Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.

Click to expand...

shen said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

You said, and I quote, "Remember this, America release dozens of Xinjiang terrorists caught training in Afganistan. The official reason given is, and I kid you not, they were only training to attack China not the US." Nothing you linked above address your extremely serious charge. If you have proof, show them! Hearsay, Innuendos, guilt by associations, circumstantial happenstances wouldn't do.

Blackstone said:

You said, and I quote, "Remember this, America release dozens of Xinjiang terrorists caught training in Afganistan. The official reason given is, and I kid you not, they were only training to attack China not the US." Nothing you linked above address your extremely serious charge. If you have proof, show them! Hearsay, Innuendos, guilt by associations, circumstantial happenstances wouldn't do.

Click to expand...

What I linked support fully what I wrote. The Xinjiang terrorists admitted during interrogation that they went to Afghanistan for the purpose of receiving trainings in order to carry out attack in China. They did receive arms training in the terrorist training camp. They were captured after the US invasion of Afghanistan and detained for years in Guantanamo. In 2008, US government changed their status to no longer considered "enemy combatant", the definition of "enemy combatant" include only terrorists intent on attack the US and coalition partners, but refused to extradite them back to China for trial and subsequently release them to third party countries. What part don't you fail to comprehend? The
You lamented in your original post why China and the US can't cooperate to fight terrorism. This is one reason why. After 9/11, China fully cooperated with the US to fight terrorists. But the duplicitous American regime reneged on the agreement, released terrorists whom admitted to planning to attack China, and continue to openly support the political arm of the same terrorist organization.

solarz said:

That's why we should restrict bullets instead. Put a 1000000% tax on all bullets.

Click to expand...

there are literally thousands of people who own reloading machines in the US. They would make there own.

shen said:

Remember this, America release dozens of Xinjiang terrorists caught training in Afganistan. The official reason given is, and I kid you not, they were only training to attack China not the US.

Click to expand...

Blackstone said:

I don't believe that for a microsecond. Please link your source.

Click to expand...

Shen your making a leap here. The US government released them after determining that they were not a threat to the US or here allies. At no point did the US government mention the PRC. Therefore your statement is invalid. They were determined Not to be a threat to the US hence there release. You then make the leap that since they are more likely to be angry with the PRC and relations between the US and PRC are not smooth sailing The US released them to fight the PRC. If that was the case then why release there identities? By officially announcing who they are the US government gave the PRC there names with red flags saying "Watch these guys they intend you harm." It's not the job of the US to cooperate with PRC security Shen nor should it be US policy to cooperate with it.

shen said:

What I linked support fully what I wrote. The Xinjiang terrorists admitted during interrogation that they went to Afghanistan for the purpose of receiving trainings in order to carry out attack in China. They did receive arms training in the terrorist training camp. They were captured after the US invasion of Afghanistan and detained for years in Guantanamo. In 2008, US government changed their status to no longer considered "enemy combatant", the definition of "enemy combatant" include only terrorists intent on attack the US and coalition partners, but refused to extradite them back to China for trial and subsequently release them to third party countries. What part don't you fail to comprehend? The
You lamented in your original post why China and the US can't cooperate to fight terrorism. This is one reason why. After 9/11, China fully cooperated with the US to fight terrorists. But the duplicitous American regime reneged on the agreement, released terrorists whom admitted to planning to attack China, and continue to openly support the political arm of the same terrorist organization.

Click to expand...

Serious accusations require serious evidence, but all you have are hearsay, innuendos, and guilt by associations. In other words, you can't produce anything concrete to prove your case. No officials of the US government would say what you claimed in public.

Quote Originally Posted by shen-

Remember this, America release dozens of Xinjiang terrorists caught training in Afganistan. The official reason given is, and I kid you not, they were only training to attack China not the US.

Click to expand...

Blackstone said:

Serious accusations require serious evidence, but all you have are hearsay, innuendos, and guilt by associations. In other words, you can't produce anything concrete to prove your case. No officials of the US government would say what you claimed in public.

Click to expand...

How so? Literally, the US released them on the grounds that they did not fit the definition of "enemy combatants", more specifically the part about them acting against the US.

Blackstone said:

Serious accusations require serious evidence, but all you have are hearsay, innuendos, and guilt by associations. In other words, you can't produce anything concrete to prove your case. No officials of the US government would say what you claimed in public.

Click to expand...

Okay, how about this -- they were released on the basis that they were not a terrorist threat to the US, and the fact that they were a terrorist threat to China was not a reason to keep them locked away.

It's true that the US never admitted officially that those individuals were released because they could pose a threat to China (from what I can remember), but it's rather difficult for many Chinese to see it that way considering how supposedly universal the US's "war on terror" is. It's more like "war on terror (against only those groups who are a threat to us or our allies)". The release of those individuals gives the impression at best that the US doesn't care if they pose a threat to China, and at worst, that they are hoping those individuals will inflict harm on China.

Combine all this with what many Chinese perceive as unequal condemnation and portrayal of terrorist acts against those in China versus terrorist acts inflicted on western countries, and it's difficult to not be suspicious.

---
edit: reading it really isn't difficult to read between the lines of the reasons for release AKA reasons for lack of continued incarceration.

solarz said:

How so? Literally, the US released them on the grounds that they did not fit the definition of "enemy combatants", more specifically the part about them acting against the US.

Click to expand...

And what does that have to do with Shen's charge (I paraphrase) the official reason US released Xinjiang terrorists is because they were training to attack China instead of the US?

Bltizo said:

Okay, how about this -- they were released on the basis that they were not a terrorist threat to the US, and the fact that they were a terrorist threat to China was not a reason to keep them locked away.

It's true that the US never admitted officially that those individuals were released because they could pose a threat to China, but it's rather difficult for many Chinese to see it that way considering how supposedly universal the US's "war on terror" is. It's more like "war on terror (against only those groups who are a threat to us or our allies)". The release of those individuals gives the impression at best that the US doesn't care if they pose a threat to China, and at worst, that they are hoping those individuals will inflict harm on China.

Combine all this with what many Chinese perceive as unequal condemnation and portrayal of terrorist acts against those in China versus terrorist acts inflicted on western countries, and it's difficult to not be suspicious.

Click to expand...

I have no objections with your theory.