Just about to say that any terrorism is bad. If china has terrorist I hope they root them out and get each one of them . As an American were plagued by Islamic extremist now that china Is the second biggest country they might start attacking that's why china is doing all the joint anti terror ops with PLA . We all would benefit from the swift crushing of this jihad .
Chinese view of bin laden's death
- Thread starter S_O_C_O_M
- Start date
Just about to say that any terrorism is bad. If china has terrorist I hope they root them out and get each one of them . As an American were plagued by Islamic extremist now that china Is the second biggest country they might start attacking that's why china is doing all the joint anti terror ops with PLA . We all would benefit from the swift crushing of this jihad .
ChineseTiger1986
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2010
- Messages
- 23,530
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
No one give a damn, we are just the audiences in this show.
Chinese-Dragon
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 33,932
- Reaction score
- 52
- Country
- Location
True. This global "war on terrorism" has nothing to do with China.
If there are any terrorists operating in Xinjiang, they should be crushed without mercy.
But anything else is not our internal affairs.
ChineseTiger1986
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2010
- Messages
- 23,530
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
So, you are sure that Al Qaeda is the only group that supported the East Turkistan movement, right?
We will eventually crush those East Turkistan separatists, but Al Qaeda is not our problem if they don't attack us.
Akasa
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2008
- Messages
- 7,227
- Reaction score
- 9
- Country
- Location
Terrorism is without a doubt the most hated form of violence in the world. Everything from the Taliban to the Irish Republican Army do nothing but harm.
Akasa
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2008
- Messages
- 7,227
- Reaction score
- 9
- Country
- Location
So, you are sure that Al Qaeda is the only group that supported the East Turkistan movement, right?
We will eventually crush those East Turkistan separatists, but Al Qaeda is not our problem if they don't attack us.
They aren't the only group, but they are a major supporter. Heck, even a Yemei Al Qaeda leader named China as the biggest infidel in his speech.
The photo of George W. Bush with Rebiya Kadeer is quite ironic; I wonder how would Americans react if Hu Jintao posed a photo with Osama Bin Laden. Because frankly, from her clear support of Islamic terrorism and separatism in China (she even said it in her speech and her bank accounts directly link to the terrorist organizations providing the bombs), she isn't any different from Osama Bin Laden.
BigTree.CN
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 899
- Reaction score
- 0
In fact, I give a damn, the best actor of this show is gone, who is gonna step up and take over his role?
CardSharp
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2010
- Messages
- 9,355
- Reaction score
- 0
Ayman al-Zawahiri has always been the idealogical leader of Al Q. Bin Laden was just the rich Saudi that was willing to pay.
Sounds that Osama was of some value to China (in an "anti-USA" role).
Let's do a calculation.... (perhaps, just for fun):
X = Osama's value in "anti-USA" role
Y = Explicit cost to China of hiding Osama in China (hiding from satellite survellaince, protection for foreign intelligence agents etc)
Z = Cost of risk, if China was exposed of hiding Osama (e.g. reputational risk etc)
Now, the value X - Y - Z is an interesting value.
It could be a positive or a negative value. Very likely it was negative, since China didn't go ahead and persuad Osama to hide in China.
However supposing Osama would have been willing to offer "A" million dollars to neutralize the net negative value, will China have been open hiding Osama?
A = X - Y - Z
Further what exactly could be a realistic value of A.
Suppose "A" were say 2 Billion USD ...... it true that Osama would not have been able to pay that amount.
But hypothetically, if 2 Billion USD were made available to neutralize the net negative value of X-Y-Z ..... things would have been much more interesting.
Let's do a calculation.... (perhaps, just for fun):
X = Osama's value in "anti-USA" role
Y = Explicit cost to China of hiding Osama in China (hiding from satellite survellaince, protection for foreign intelligence agents etc)
Z = Cost of risk, if China was exposed of hiding Osama (e.g. reputational risk etc)
Now, the value X - Y - Z is an interesting value.
It could be a positive or a negative value. Very likely it was negative, since China didn't go ahead and persuad Osama to hide in China.
However supposing Osama would have been willing to offer "A" million dollars to neutralize the net negative value, will China have been open hiding Osama?
A = X - Y - Z
Further what exactly could be a realistic value of A.
Suppose "A" were say 2 Billion USD ...... it true that Osama would not have been able to pay that amount.
But hypothetically, if 2 Billion USD were made available to neutralize the net negative value of X-Y-Z ..... things would have been much more interesting.
Well... Well ..... the financial trasaction does need some protection against "counterparty credit risk" for both China and Osama:
(perhaps you can imagine shrewd banker smiling)
So, the transaction goes:
1. China hides Osama from 11-Sep-2001 to 11-Sep-2003; keeps getting $ 50 million at each month-end.
2. On 11-Sep-2003, China gets a lumpsum USD 1 billion
3. After 11-Sep-2003, $ 50 million continues to be paid every month-end.
4. On 2-May-2011, China gets another USD 1 billion (true, I use a post-facto important date .... but let's have it, anyways)
5. There after, USD 50 million every month-end till Osama dies, or decides to opt out of the protection plan.
Is this transaction bankable?
Otherwise, how to modify it (.... and yet, don't make it too one-sided) !
(perhaps you can imagine shrewd banker smiling)
So, the transaction goes:
1. China hides Osama from 11-Sep-2001 to 11-Sep-2003; keeps getting $ 50 million at each month-end.
2. On 11-Sep-2003, China gets a lumpsum USD 1 billion
3. After 11-Sep-2003, $ 50 million continues to be paid every month-end.
4. On 2-May-2011, China gets another USD 1 billion (true, I use a post-facto important date .... but let's have it, anyways)
5. There after, USD 50 million every month-end till Osama dies, or decides to opt out of the protection plan.
Is this transaction bankable?
Otherwise, how to modify it (.... and yet, don't make it too one-sided) !
Similar threads
