Snow Leopards saent to Xinjiang

[OrionHunter]

You sure have no respect for other religions, and no shame to hide it either.

Hold on! Is it written anywhere in the holy Koran that if you blow yourself up, you'll be greeted by 72 virgins in 'Jannat'? I don't think so. This has been manufactured by your Mullahs to brainwash youngsters into strapping on explosive vests and blowing themselves up killing scores in the process, never mind if they're ordinary Muslims or not.

Is that religion for you? The Mullahs are taking people for a jolly good ride and rational people like you just look on! Because you guys have no spunk to take them on. Period!

 

[Aramsogo]

Indians really do have nothing better to do than worry about Chinese problems. That's why even a hundred years from now people will still be talking about India "emerging".

 

[Solomon2]

The GoP either is incompetent or is complicit. Who knows which?>???

I am probably the only one here who thinks it is quite possible that no Pakistani or Muslim or Uighur had anything to do with these attacks at all.

Instead, the Chinese government is making a statement signaling a sea-change in its Pakistan policy. How can that be, you may ask?

Consider that after the Abbotabad incident on May 2nd the Pakistani press and government lauded China for its full support of Pakistan. That was a misrepresentation - a deliberate one - of Chinese policy. link That couldn't have pleased the Chinese. So how were the Chinese to respond?

In my opinion, the Chinese conception of language and communication is not quite like our own. The letters on this page form words that combine into things and actions. In English cause and effect are logically ordered to describe something accurately, which is one reason why English is so useful in everything from science research to waging battles.

Chinese and Japanese writing, by contrast, is a collection of ideographs. Cause and effect are not so important as the final picture desired. This allows unusual flexibility in reaching desired ends, albeit at the cost of poor interpersonal communication. (Churchill, for example, theorized that the Japanese lost battles because their language wasn't flexible enough for widely-spaced commanders to communicate quickly when situational changes occurred that were not according to plan.)

So the Chinese, while displeased with Pakistan, are not going to limit themselves to direct contradiction, as an American would. After all, that would set up a confrontation and counter-accusations by Pakistan. Why set up China for criticism at all if another way is available?

So the Chinese may have bombed places in Xinjiang themselves with the idea of blaming Pakistan afterward. The desired effect is achieved: Pakistan and Pakistanis are put on notice that Pakistan does not have unquestioned and full Chinese support. Pakistani government officials can't deny Chinese accusations without damaging the relationship they publicly prized so highly - both Pakistani-Chinese relations and their own personal credibility and prestige would be damaged.

Note that China gains justification for intervention in Pakistan in the future - filling the void when the Americans leave, perhaps.

Chinese officials can do such dastardly deeds - even killing their own citizens within China itself - simply because they work for a police state, not a democracy. The FBI and CIA could never do such a thing, and it's a stretch for a Westerner like me to even think of it - only prolonged contact with Chinese and historical study suggest the possibility and, to China's leaders, the desirability of such a course of action.

 

[TaimiKhan]

I am probably the only one here who thinks it is quite possible that no Pakistani or Muslim or Uighur had anything to do with these attacks at all.

Instead, the Chinese government is making a statement signaling a sea-change in its Pakistan policy. How can that be, you may ask?

Consider that after the Abbotabad incident on May 2nd the Pakistani press and government lauded China for its full support of Pakistan. That was a misrepresentation - a deliberate one - of Chinese policy. link That couldn't have pleased the Chinese. So how were the Chinese to respond?

In my opinion, the Chinese conception of language and communication is not quite like our own. The letters on this page form words that combine into things and actions. In English cause and effect are logically ordered to describe something accurately, which is one reason why English is so useful in everything from science research to waging battles.

Chinese and Japanese writing, by contrast, is a collection of ideographs. Cause and effect are not so important as the final picture desired. This allows unusual flexibility in reaching desired ends, albeit at the cost of poor interpersonal communication. (Churchill, for example, theorized that the Japanese lost battles because their language wasn't flexible enough for widely-spaced commanders to communicate quickly when situational changes occurred that were not according to plan.)

So the Chinese, while displeased with Pakistan, are not going to limit themselves to direct contradiction, as an American would. After all, that would set up a confrontation and counter-accusations by Pakistan. Why set up China for criticism at all if another way is available?

So the Chinese may have bombed places in Xinjiang themselves with the idea of blaming Pakistan afterward. The desired effect is achieved: Pakistan and Pakistanis are put on notice that Pakistan does not have unquestioned and full Chinese support. Pakistani government officials can't deny Chinese accusations without damaging the relationship they publicly prized so highly - both Pakistani-Chinese relations and their own personal credibility and prestige would be damaged.

Note that China gains justification for intervention in Pakistan in the future - filling the void when the Americans leave, perhaps.

Chinese officials can do such dastardly deeds - even killing their own citizens within China itself - simply because they work for a police state, not a democracy. The FBI and CIA could never do such a thing, and it's a stretch for a Westerner like me to even think of it - only prolonged contact with Chinese and historical study suggest the possibility and, to China's leaders, the desirability of such a course of action.

And people say, we are obsessed with conspiracy theories.

It seems we are not alone.

 

[Zabaniyah]

Self delete...

 

[Obambam]

Indians really do have nothing better to do than worry about Chinese problems. That's why even a hundred years from now people will still be talking about India "emerging".

Everyday life becomes easier and less miserable with the believe that life is tougher in other countries, especially in China and Pakistan.

 

[Solomon2]

And people say, we are obsessed with conspiracy theories.

Here is a benign example of China's indirect approach. After the 1969 Ussuri river battles between China and Russia President Nixon perceived an opportunity for improvement in Sino-U.S. relations; there was no diplomatic contact between the two countries because the U.S. recognized the Nationalists in Taiwan as the legal government of all China. In this slow-motion opening Pakistan secretly played a central role. Through them the Chinese were told that President Nixon wanted to go to China and make the improvement in relations public. But how could the Chinese be sure they weren't walking into some sort of trap where China could be blamed for anything that went wrong?

Their solution became known as Ping-Pong Diplomacy: American ping-pong players competing at a tournament in Japan were "spontaneously" invited by the Chinese team to visit China. The American team leader fell into the "trap" and accepted. The visit was trumpeted with great fanfare and friendliness. Now having welcomed the American ping-pong players so warmly, Nixon couldn't entrap China by saying he had tried to improve relations but failed due to Chinese intransigence - but of course Nixon of course had no such intention and celebrated the U.S. team's visit along with everyone else. Reassured of Nixon's intentions, the Chinese proceeded to open up relations rapidly.

 

[unicorn]

@ solomon 2

This is a hasty generalization.
What you are trying to do is to convince a person by drawing a conclusion about a large class of things
(in this case, people) from just a small sample.

 

[Solomon2]

@ solomon 2
This is a hasty generalization. What you are trying to do is to convince a person by drawing a conclusion about a large class of things
(in this case, people) from just a small sample.

It's called inductive reasoning and yes it has the disadvantages you describe. That doesn't mean the line of reasoning is incorrect, only that one can't have great confidence in it.

 

[Nav]

Pictures of snow leopards

 

[S10]

I am probably the only one here who thinks it is quite possible that no Pakistani or Muslim or Uighur had anything to do with these attacks at all.

Instead, the Chinese government is making a statement signaling a sea-change in its Pakistan policy. How can that be, you may ask?

Consider that after the Abbotabad incident on May 2nd the Pakistani press and government lauded China for its full support of Pakistan. That was a misrepresentation - a deliberate one - of Chinese policy. link That couldn't have pleased the Chinese. So how were the Chinese to respond?

In my opinion, the Chinese conception of language and communication is not quite like our own. The letters on this page form words that combine into things and actions. In English cause and effect are logically ordered to describe something accurately, which is one reason why English is so useful in everything from science research to waging battles.

Chinese and Japanese writing, by contrast, is a collection of ideographs. Cause and effect are not so important as the final picture desired. This allows unusual flexibility in reaching desired ends, albeit at the cost of poor interpersonal communication. (Churchill, for example, theorized that the Japanese lost battles because their language wasn't flexible enough for widely-spaced commanders to communicate quickly when situational changes occurred that were not according to plan.)

So the Chinese, while displeased with Pakistan, are not going to limit themselves to direct contradiction, as an American would. After all, that would set up a confrontation and counter-accusations by Pakistan. Why set up China for criticism at all if another way is available?

So the Chinese may have bombed places in Xinjiang themselves with the idea of blaming Pakistan afterward. The desired effect is achieved: Pakistan and Pakistanis are put on notice that Pakistan does not have unquestioned and full Chinese support. Pakistani government officials can't deny Chinese accusations without damaging the relationship they publicly prized so highly - both Pakistani-Chinese relations and their own personal credibility and prestige would be damaged.

Note that China gains justification for intervention in Pakistan in the future - filling the void when the Americans leave, perhaps.

Chinese officials can do such dastardly deeds - even killing their own citizens within China itself - simply because they work for a police state, not a democracy. The FBI and CIA could never do such a thing, and it's a stretch for a Westerner like me to even think of it - only prolonged contact with Chinese and historical study suggest the possibility and, to China's leaders, the desirability of such a course of action.

911 was an inside job. US never landed on the moon. CIA whacked Kennedy.

 

[Solomon2]

911 was an inside job. US never landed on the moon. CIA whacked Kennedy.

"When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff."
- Cicero

Congratulations, S10. You are now two thousand years behind.

 

[Martian]

Of course not! The vaunted American CIA could NEVER. in a million years. penetrate the PRC and be "active" in fomenting Uighur terrorism.....

....Rebiya Kadeer....

Under pressure from the United States and international organizations, she was released to exile in March 2005. She was soon elected president of two exile groups, the Uighur American Association, which represents the 1,000 or so Uighurs in the United States, and the World Uighur Congress, an umbrella for 47 groups worldwide, with headquarters in Munich.

Both groups receive much of their funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, a bipartisan organization created and financed by the United States Congress that promotes democracy worldwide. They engage in research and advocacy on human rights issues that affect the Uighur people.......

Rebiya Kadeer News - The New York Times

After all Americans are not so innocent

 

[Dalai Lama]

Everyday life becomes easier and less miserable with the believe that life is tougher in other countries, especially in China and Pakistan.

And some people make themselves feel better about their own country by constantly belittling others'. Take this thread for example, nothing to to with India, not even posted by an Indian... but here we are.

Why not pick on the American? Because I guess as arrogant as you are you're not quite at the point of belittling America eh?

 

[unicorn]

It's called inductive reasoning and yes it has the disadvantages you describe. That doesn't mean the line of reasoning is incorrect, only that one can't have great confidence in it.

You just have nullified your own reasoning(aka inductive which is not), and at the end of the day that is what important.To convince some one.

One of the most serious mistakes in your reasoning is to confuse “good argument” with “argument whose conclusion I agree with.” To suppose that an argument is good only if it agrees with your own preexisting opinions is the epitome of close-mindedness. It reflects the mind-set of someone who thinks, “I have a monopoly on the truth. Anyone who disagrees with me must be wrong.”Such an attitude makes it impossible to learn from viewpoints that differ from one’s own.

No wonder with that sort of approach it will take you ages to convince even a naive mind.Besides I have never seen you winning any argument.