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.
And you know that it's true because you yourself said that we have been inordinately carefull not to allow stories abotu civilian casualties to surface. Not because we value those lives but because we loathe the political ramifications.
Moral relativism has no place in war. Either we are justified in our actions and are willing to sacrifice our lives for this cause, or we are not.
As I said before, this is not a reflection on our servicement and women. They are inordinately brave for serving under cowards.
Instead we should have sent Holiday greeting cards to the perps stamped with that Islamic stamp that is out, suggesting that it was time to give peace a chance, and make love not war.
Does that about sum it up?
Well, gee, dog...it's been all over the news. Haven't you been watching? Oh, that's right, you don't watch TV. Well, just to bring you up to speed, it worked like this:
1. We initially took out the enemy's MILITARY air defences by bombing anti-aircraft installations;
2. Then we sent in Special Forces to help guide our computerized munitions to other MILITARY targets;
3. Then we used those same Special Forces (who btw, are on the ground in harms way) to obliterate all the MILITARY targets on our lists:
4. Then we sent in the Marines to take airports and such with explicit orders (according to news reports) to minimize civilian casulties;
4. Then we...oh never mind.
All the while, trying to alleviate some of the hunger and misery with our air drops, which are continueing. Yup, we have "total disregard for human life".
However, were this not the case, then I would expect that our actions would be justified and the matter of civilian casualties would not be one of politics but of the just execution of the war.
The only concern now is wheher or not it "looks good" or not. That is the extent of our transparent concern.
Yes. Because then the constitution would be at least respected. And Congress would have had to debate and discuss the necessity for war and have declared war against a nation rather than an idea.
It may come as a shock to you but the constitution is important to me.
That is the most pathetic bunch of psuedo-intellectual gobblygook I've seen come from you. Get this you pitiful ideolog:
This fight is about self-defense - the right to exist and maintain our way of life. Remember 9/11? Huh? Do you? Well, that day gave us the right to go after those SOB's in any way we like. Now you may not believe in self-defense unless it's a fair fight, but those of us who have traveled the world staring the bad guys in the face, know you do what it takes to win...or they WILL kill us.
Straight up: Would you rather have our fathers, sons, and brothers dying on the ground then working with the NA who have been itching to take back their country for a long time?
I agree with point 1, which is that almost any article by world nut daily or debka is a load of crap. But I don't think you can say that china is our friend. They are neither friend nor foe, they exist to better themselves. If we are in the way, they will try to roll us over, if we are on their side, they will take us along for the ride. Finally, I think Canada is statistically our most active trading partner. China comes in 4th behind Canada, Mexico and Japan. If you consider the EU a single entity instead of a bunch of little countries the size of maryland, then china comes in 5th.
Pulleaze....
You're reaching now. And I do believe there has been collateral damage. But it's pretty clear to reasonable people who have been following the reports and to the military Freepers on these threads, that we are being "particularly carefull".
Of course it's a dead end. A dead end for tyrants. If they had to abide by the constitution then 100% of the military actions we've taken in the last 50 years would be forbidden.
The restrictions are there for a reason. If you take the political risk of declaring war and executing that war, then you should accept responsibility for your actions.
Subverting the consitution is wrong and there is no justification for it.
Okay, that did it for me. Go stick your head back in one of those books from the "Geo-political Theoretical Ideology Boob of the Month Club" and let us men defend you and your family. Bye.
I am comfortable with the decision. I'm sad that innocent Afgans have and may still pay the price. I for one, do not know what else we could have done short of doing nothing to prevent the deaths. This is the unfortunate and shamefull part of war and we will forever carry this burdon of guilt.
That will make about as much sense for Russia as the sheep making an alliance with the wolves because they dislike the border collies. Russia is facing over a billion Chinese to the East and a billion Muslims to the South, all enviously coveting Russia's territory and resources. There is absolutely no reason at this point why Russia and the US shouldn't be friends, but they need us far worse than we need them. If the Russians side with the Chinese against us, they will be sealing their own national doom.
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.