Posted on 12/02/2019 8:00:38 AM PST by SeekAndFind
This is why... they are going against the left's favorite religion "of peace"
RE: This is why... they are going against the left’s favorite religion “of peace”
While there are radicals existing in the Xin Jiang area, MOST of the Uyghurs are SECULAR Muslims. I’ve been in that area and they’re not even very devout.
If China has spent $200 million in Taiwan to obtain influence, they almost certainly have spent billions in the U.S. to obtain influence.
“they almost certainly have spent billions in the U.S. to obtain influence.”
And we know that Hunter Biden got at least one of those billions.
RE: If China has spent $200 million in Taiwan to obtain influence
There’s talk that the current opposition candidate in Taiwan, Han Kuo Yu ( who is open to talks with China instead of having a confrontational attitude like the current President) is under the pocket of the Chicoms, an accusation he vehemently denies.
But then, all of this information came from the defecting spy, William Wang. The Aussies are very skeptical about everything this young man says.
Back in 2003 Hu Jintao addressed Australia’s parliament and tacitly claimed Australia as Chinese.
“Back in the 1420s, the expeditionary fleets of China’s Ming Dynasty reached Australian shores.
For centuries, the Chinese sailed across vast seas and settled down in what they called Southern Land, or today’s Australia.
They brought Chinese culture to this land and lived harmoniously with the local people, contributing their proud share to Australia’s economy, society and its thriving pluralistic culture.”
https://www.smh.com.au/national/full-text-hus-speech-20031024-gdhnfs.html
RE: They brought Chinese culture to this land and lived harmoniously with the local people, contributing their proud share to Australia’s economy, society and its thriving pluralistic culture.”
So, why didn’t they stay?
Spending lots of money to purchase influence inside of regimes is deemed much cheaper than using military force.
Here’s a more relevant question -— is it Hu Jin Tao’s contention that whoever stepped foot in a place ( as vast as Australia ) has a claim to own the place?
Granted there were Native American Indians living in this land we now call the USA — but WHO actually claimed to own the ENTIRE lower 48 plus Alaska among the Indian tribes?
They were busy warring with each other and enslaving one another.
I am not familiar with the history of aborigines PRIOR to the arrival of Europeans so I do not know if one tribe lived in peace and harmony with another tribe then.
RE: Spending lots of money to purchase influence inside of regimes is deemed much cheaper than using military force
When I showed this strategy to a college professor friend, he simply asked the rhetorical question -— wasn’t this strategy also similar to America’s prior to the emergence of China?
The age old strategy of the Middle Kingdom. You don’t have to necessarily physically occupy the barbarian states (everyone who is not China!) you just need to control their behavior.
They have 1.2 billion people to feed and about 800 million poor people and pressure is going to be increasing as they’ve had major problems with their food supplies
There are 300 million Christians in China that are very sick of being oppressed and I would bet it for majority of the population there feels the same
“Here’s a more relevant question -— is it Hu Jin Tao’s contention that whoever stepped foot in a place ( as vast as Australia ) has a claim to own the place?”
From Chinazi point of view, yes. It, at the least, provides rationalization.
Why else would he say something so ludicrous?
RE: This is why... they are going against the left’s favorite religion “of peace”
While there are radicals existing in the Xin Jiang area, MOST of the Uyghurs are SECULAR Muslims. I’ve been in that area and they’re not even very devout.
****************
What’s going on in that area is what’s always gone on in that empire we call China. Many many different peoples, and they’re all Han now.
That didn’t happen on accident.
RE: Many many different peoples, and they’re all Han now.
I’m trying to understand this statement. How are Uyghurs considered Han now?
RE: They have 1.2 billion people to feed and about 800 million poor people and pressure is going to be increasing as they’ve had major problems with their food supplies
Make that 1.386 billion (as at 2017)
RE: Many many different peoples, and they’re all Han now.
I’m trying to understand this statement. How are Uyghurs considered Han now?
******************
I was talking about the rest of China. What’s happening to the Uyghurs now has happened to every other major non Han population in the Chinese empire throughout its history.
Notice:
The Chinese aren’t just wholesale slaughtering them all. Many of the women are being left and Han men are being moved in with them as their new state provided husbands. Two birds, one stone with that.
Helps fix the fubar of the one child policy and the massive over abundance of males.
Begins the genetic replacement process.
If China didn’t have the one child policy fubar, then there’d be state provided “herd bulls” going house to house impregnating the women whether the women wanted it or not.
RE: Helps fix the fubar of the one child policy and the massive over abundance of males.
Two questions.
1) I thought we now have a 2-child policy.
2) Setting #1 above aside.... are/were the Uyghurs ( and maybe Tibetans ) EXEMPTED from the one-child policy?
Really?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.