SomaliNet Forums

Basra- wrote: I blame adoon obama.Adoon were not meant to lead or generate money.I think US governement should sabotage/do something to disable the growth of china's economy. IF china fails we gain. US government need to have that mentality! I hope we dont end up being like third world countries!

If the US government tries to sabotage China's economy (or its growth), China can easily ruin what's left of America's little might and prestige. For instance, China would arm Islamic insurgents (Taliban, Al-Shabaab, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc) with anti-drone & anti-warplane technology, and with that, Islamic insurgents would easily overrun and defeat American forces wherever they are (Afghanistan, Iraq, Djibouti, Somalia, Khaliij, etc). That's why the US government can never dare to sabotage China's economy (or its growth).

There is no need to disable the Chinese economy. The West only needs to get them to live up to their ened of the deal with respect to intellectual property. The present situation has been so profitable for them only because of all the bootlegging.

Arming the terrorists wouild be a mistake. Others would arm the Uighers, Tibetans, Mongols and other minorities who are already fed up with the Han Chinese. That would spark a new nationalist uproar rather than a jihad that would profit the Takfiiris.

Indho yaar are clever because they eat malay.

Same reason why Warsangeli are the smartest people in Somalia

The issue Muslims have with China is small, unlike that of America. China isn't occupying Muslim lands. It doesn't support our repressive and corrupt Muslim leaders or governments. There are no Chinese military bases in Muslim lands. China isn't hegemonic nor is after conquering or subjugating Muslims. America even tortured and psychology damaged Uighur Muslims at Gitmo and other torture centers. Clearly, America's injustices against Muslims doesn't compare to that of China in the smallest detail.

Ignorance is such bliss!

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/wealthof ... ghers.aspx

FYI: The Han Chinese are not pro-Muslim. What Muslim clerics are allowed to teach in Xinziang is strictly proscribed.

While Takfiiris may not see the Chinese as interferring in Islamic territories, The ethnic and religious minorities inside Chinese -held territory are certainly aware of the Han suppression of their cultures. Here is what is going on in Urumqi today:

http://www.1913intel.com/2009/07/08/the ... w-to-spin/

As a Takfiiri, you may not be concerned, TAM; but the Turkish government is.

Also, China didn't carry out an inside job in order to invade, occupy and colonize Muslims. China isn't even a tiny Satan.

Takfiiri perspective.

Interesting, so Grant, what you are saying is that as long as the population of china become generally more better off, inversely the growth rate of their economy will decrease?

Here's the article:

Why Investors Should Care About Uighers
Rana Foroohar

"That’s pronounced “Wee-gur,” just so you know. By now you’ve probably read about this Muslim minority in China, who are clashing with Han Chinese in the country’s remote Xinjiang province. While this is mainly a political story about Chinese repression of ethnic minorities, it has some important economic lessons. For starters, Xinjiang is an area rich in oil and minerals--not incidental to the fact that the Chinese authorities are eager to make sure it stays part of China. But second and more importantly, the ethnic violence reflects what may be the biggest deterrent to Chinese growth--autocracy. I recently saw a very interesting study by the Carnegie Endowment looking at the connection between political freedom and economic growth within society. The link is strong. The study found that countries like China, Iran, Venezuela, and the like, which have become more repressive over the last few years, have also experienced sharp decreases in consumption. Basically, if people don’t feel secure, they don’t spend, and economies don’t grow as fast.

China has so far been able to offset this effect with its massive exports. But with Western economies in decline, that era is coming to an end. And there are many economists who believe that the treatment of the Uighers, as well as China’s stance toward Tibet, and its general repression of its entire population, are a growing economic risk factor. Yesterday, I got a report from Capital Economics in London entitled “Is political stability assured in China?” Their answer was no. While China has so far done well in terms of political stability relative to its neighbors with similar per capita GDPs, Capital noted that past performance was a poor indicator for the future given that Chinese leadership is so opaque. “The form that any institutional change could take is as hard to predict as the timing,” notes the report. What’s more, there’s an assumption that a more democratic China would continue to support economic reform. Not necessarily so. If the Chinese could all vote, the rural population would rule--and they may be much less supportive of the industry-led model that has made the coasts (and many Western investors) rich over the last two decades. The upshot: China may well be less politically stable, and thus less economically secure, than we think. "