Posted on 12/14/2001 10:34:47 PM PST by spycatcher
Last spring, President George W. Bush faced his first major foreign-policy challenge when an American EP-3E surveillance plane was hit by a Chinese fighter and forced to land on Hainan Island. Tensions flared even further as China detained the 24 American crewmen for 10 days, the standoff eventually resolving after both plane and crew were finally released. Still, U.S.-Sino relations remained ominously chilly throughout the year, until they were overshadowed by the events of Sept. 11.
Post 9-11, the Bush administration's focus has, of course, been riveted on the terror war, and China has gone off the main radar. But despite Beijing's public support for the coalition's war on terror, regular rumblings of Chinese complicity with the terrorists have surfaced. Among them was a WND report of some Chinese fighters assisting the Taliban.
Now, author Gordon Thomas has written a book claiming that Beijing had an actual role in the Sept. 11 attack on America. In "Seeds of Fire," Thomas purports to show how Beijing is positioning itself to become America's "new major enemy."
An investigative journalist from Ireland and author of 38 books, Thomas points out that on Sept. 11, a transport plane from Beijing landed in Kabul. A Chinese delegation had gone to Afghanistan to sign a deal with the Taliban – reportedly brokered by Osama bin Laden – to provide the Afghans with missile-tracking technology, state-of-the-art communications and air-defense systems. In return, says Thomas, the Taliban would order Muslim separatists in northwest China to stop their activities.
In a Sept. 13 report, the Washington Post confirmed that Beijing had just signed a deal with the Taliban to provide Afghanistan "with much needed infrastructure and economic development assistance."
Due to the fall of the Taliban at the hands of opposition forces and the United States, however, "the goods were never delivered," Thomas told WorldNetDaily.
The delegation, says Thomas, included senior officers of the People's Liberation Army and the Bureau of State Security, as well as managers from two of China's leading defense contractors.
In his book, Thomas contends that hours after the plane landed in Kabul, CIA Director George Tenet received a coded "red alert" message from Israeli Mossad agents that presented a "worst case scenario" – that China would use a surrogate, bin Laden, to attack the United States.
Thomas also claims that the head of Pakistan's intelligence service was in Washington to meet with Tenet on Sept. 11, and that he briefed Tenet that day on the links between bin Laden and China.
The intelligence agent "told [Tenet] that China had made a decisive decision," wrote Thomas. "It was prepared to infuriate America and its allies in supporting bin Laden and the Taliban because Afghanistan fitted into China's own long-term strategic plans."
Saying that bin Laden has traveled to China numerous times to meet with officials there, Thomas contends that "almost certainly he talked to them about obtaining" material to build weapons of mass destruction.
China's President Jiang Zemin, adds Thomas, waited three days to contact Bush about the Sept. 11 attack and told the U.S. president that, vis-à-vis the war on terrorism, China would find itself in a "difficult situation, given our well-known position of opposing any interference in the internal affairs of any country."
Washington sources say that Bush "gritted his teeth and said he would push on without China," Thomas wrote.
The author also cites what he calls the "happy parties in the streets of Beijing" following the 9-11 attacks. "They're selling videos there with commentary saying, 'America had it coming,'" said Thomas. "Their message is: 'America can be defeated.'"
On another note, Thomas believes President Bush's decision to pull out of the ABM treaty will cause Russia and China to strengthen their ties – to the detriment of the United States. "It's in China's interest to see the U.S. destablilized," he added.
Not at all. I am very much aware of that fact. And it is troubling. I know that we'll screw them over once things are all complete. They are not worthy of our respect.
Another brain-dead observation. Peacenikspeak.
Our actions show a disregard for the lives of those who show a disregard for OUR lives.
But, then, that's what war is. Kill the other guy before he kills you.
And that "disregard" would also be shown by the meticulous and consistent efforts to minimize civilian casualties in our campaign? You're getting laughable, dog.
So what should we call people who harbor those who want to see us dead? Honey-pie?
If it makes you feel better, I think you're a pasty-faced white boy.
Facts and reason? No fair!
And while you're at it...do with overwhelming force and with as little damage possible to yourself. Maybe these guys would prefer the old colonial face off ala The Patriot. Now there was brilliant way to fight a war. The side who has 10 left out of 10,000, wins.
We haven't done that. More evidence. Thanks.
You claim that the Norhern Alliance show disregard for our lives?
Nope. We show disregard for the Taliban lives. They are the enemy.
What a surprise!
Think, hoot-man.
If civilian casualties weren't an issue, this war would have been over in two weeks.
So you say. There's no proof of that, of course.
Just your mangy opinion.
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.