I don't find the idea surprising. I've been wary since 9/11 that China might conceivably have had some sort of involvement, that it's a possibility we should be aware of and watch for, and I've posted on this subject before.
Many people have expressed disbelief in the possibility of Chinese involvement, on the principle that China has its own problems with Muslim separatists in the western part of China. But, in fact, China would stand to gain from a protracted war between the U.S. and the Muslim world. (I'm not referring to a war with Iraq here, but a war with loosely-organized Islamic extremists across much of the globe.) The Chinese may be thinking that they could sit back and watch while their two main enemies weakened one another.
So the thought is that the Chinese might be providing support to the Islamic terrorists, egging them on, at the same time thinking of those terrorists as patsies in the long run. The Islamists, for their part, would be under no illusions about the Chinese, but they are willing to take assistance when it is offered, figuring that they can bite the hand that feeds them when the time comes. (The mujahideen in Afghanistan were happy to accept U.S. support in their war against the Soviet Union.)
China has been quite aggressive in recent years. There were rumors about a Chinese nuclear threat on L.A. The Chinese have been quite forward in espionage and otherwise getting inside information from our government. And one interesting point: the Chinese precipitated a major crisis in their relations with the U.S. in Spring, 2001, when their fighter crashed into one of our planes; notice how the timing couldn't have been better to distract our intelligence services and our military -- just at the time that the 9/11 plot was being turned into reality.
China also has a long-term interest in unconventional warfare, including recently cyberwarfare.
The Chinese people, although not terribly fond of their government, are nationalistic. The Chinese were genuinely outraged when the U.S. bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade -- which, by the way, they uncharacteristically never retaliated for in any obvious fashion.
In any event, I don't think this report really is coming out of left field. Nancy Pelosi may be speculating along the lines I've outlined above, and she is privy to information which I'm not.
Odd outlet, too. Why Barrons? Of course, it could be that the reporter picked up on a throwaway comment and, it being news to him, blew it all out of proportion.
Yes, I agree that this is possible. But I'm still suspicious of China, for the reasons outlined above.
I'm aware of your speculations about Chinese involvement in terrorist activity, behind the scenes. And you've developed the thesis quite well in your response.
The Cold War was often, nay, usually, fought with surrogates. The Soviets refined the technique and the ChiComms would doubtless be warm to the idea of "indirect" warfare, themselves.
While I grant there is a very good chance that Red China is somehow involved at some level -- at least as a cheerleader and willing source of supply -- the Pelosi story still baffles me. Why now? Why her? Why Barrons? Why, at all?
It's enough to make the antennae quiver. But, in that I can't divine any useful purpose, I'm disinclined to grant much weight to it. A "sport", a random item of informational static...just one piece of a puzzle that has no apparent form, shape or color. If, however, we should come across a complementary piece of the puzzle...