Actually, I would back al Qaeda against the Chinese, on the precept that it is generally better to back the weak against the strong.
The reason I back Gaddafi against al Qaeda should be obvious - Gaddafi has dismantled his nukes and made peace with us. Al Qaeda hasn't. The way Larry (Sarkozy), Moe (Cameron) and Curly (Obama) are playing the Libyan situation sends the following message (and I quote org.whodat): to all third world powers, you are only safe with your finger on a nuclear weapon and a dead man firing switch. It is a brave new world.
China, as a unitary state with a long history of territorial aggrandizement at the expense of its neighbors, not to mention atrocities that put Japan's WWII misbehavior in the shade, poses a much bigger threat than al Qaeda or the Muslim world will ever manage. Do not mistake China's relative quiescence for long-term acquiescence to the current distribution of territory. The following internet commentator summarizes my feelings vis-a-vis China to a T:
As one of my best Chinese friends put it: “If any Chinese ever tells you we are a peace-loving nation, don’t believe them. We have just had enough time to first – eliminate and/or intimidate, then – incorporate all our former enemies.” There is nothing true than his words.
I agree that we should back whomever is the weaker side. That's why we should back the rebels. I don't believe for a single second that Kadhafi really dismantled his WMD programs any more than North Korea abandoned their nuclear program in exchange for us supplying them nuclear fuel. Both policies were naive. I'm supposed to believe UN inspectors like Scott Ritter or Mohammed el-Baradei of the IAEA when they tell me Kadhafi is good? Appeasement does not work on islamofascists any more than it works on Stalinists.