uighur-l Thoughts on Recent events

Uighur-L email forum ^ | Sept 17, 2002 | Turdi Ghoja

[Pearls Before Swine]

I, and many Americans, instinctively have sympathy for the underdog. When the oppressor is China, especially after what they did to Tibet, the propensity for sympathy is increased. However, after 9/11, I want to know if the Uighars are Islamist. If they are, my ears are closed and my heart is hardened. I can't help but think, after what I've seen, that Islamist sympathies dominate everything, and their cries of oppression are only due to a poor strategic position, and that if they were on top, they'd oppress in the name of Allah.

Sorry, Moose-limbs--you've brought my bad attitude towards everyone in the Ummah on yourselves.

[Gangchen_gonpo]

Please read the article and see for yourself.

Because in Uyghurs eyes, US still scores much higher than our Muslim neighbors who share a similar culture, language and religion.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Please read the article and see for yourself.

Because in Uyghurs eyes, US still scores much higher than our Muslim neighbors who share a similar culture, language and religion.

Yeah, but is that sentiment real, or is it "taqqiyah?" We've been jerked around a lot by the rest of the Ummah--don't blame me for wondering.

[rmlew]

Turks are rarely Islamist. Historically, they have been the most tolerant of Muslims. This has to do with a cultural tradition of allowing peoples to practice any religion they wanted. Heck, they all coverted from their Shamanistic traditions because of this religious tolerance. No one spoke of religious oppression under the Huns, Blue Turks, Avars, Bulghars, Magyars, Khazars,Uyghurs, Pechinegs, Black Hats, Ghuzz, Seljuk, Tatars, or Mongols. There was some opression when teh Osmani/Ottoman Turk consolodated power over the reminants of the Byzantine Empire, but this is an exception that proves the rule.
Steppe peoples were either indifferent to religion (sacking churches like anything else) or tolerant.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Steppe peoples were either indifferent to religion (sacking churches like anything else) or tolerant.

Then they have my sympathies.

My point is that, normally, without the recent worldwide demonstrations of Islamist perfidy (9/11, suicide bombings in Israel, dancing in the streets in Palestine and Detroit, apologia from Farrakhan, CAIR, MEMRI, Cynthia McKinney, etc, etc ad nauseum), I would have naturally been sympathetic and believing. Now, the burden of proof in the propaganda contest for my goodwill (for the little value that it has) has been shifted. I'm thinking of America first, and I'm suspicious. Can you blame me?

[ellery]

I have mixed feelings. I deeply sympathize with the plight of all oppressed people, and I appreciate that this article recognizes America's freedom and promise. However, the following paragraph gave me serious pause. It seems to imply that we will bear part of the blame if Uyghers increasingly turn to violence. That doesn't wash with me -- it smells faintly of blackmail. The most successful liberation movements in this country -- rights for African Americans and women -- happened because very wise people such as Susan B. Anthony and Dr. Martin Luther King pursued NON-violent resistance. This is the only kind of protest most Americans will accept.

The US listing of ETIM as terrorist organization has very little real impact on ETIM. It may not have any significant assets to freeze, it may be already ceased exist even though its leader Hasan Mehsum might be hiding somewhere, but, it will have a big impact on the Uyghur population in general. Uyghurs inside East Turkistan might become more desperate and radicalized, and increasingly turn to violence. Most of the violence so far are carried out by individuals or loosely organized small groups who probably acted on their anger. There is lot of pent-up anger since there is no venue for people to express their discontent. Whether China likes or not, the voices of the outside Uyghur activist groups might have served to calm down some of the agitated people inside China by saying what they are dying to say about the government policy, and giving them a glimpse of hope.

[rmlew]

I don't blame you for distrusting Muslims. I just think that histroy matters.
Today, there is a band of countries from Greek to Chinese borders with 3 things in common:
1. They are Turkish
2. They are Muslim but not Islamist
3. They are Western oriented.

The only exception I can think of are the Volga Bulghars and Burtas who are in Russia and see their "homeland" occupied by increasing numbers of Russians.
I suppose that the same could hold true for the Uyghurs with Chinese colonists.

[rmlew]

I have mixed feelings. I deeply sympathize with the plight of all oppressed people, and I appreciate that this article recognizes America's freedom and promise. However, the following paragraph gave me serious pause. It seems to imply that we will bear part of the blame if Uyghers increasingly turn to violence. That doesn't wash with me -- it smells faintly of blackmail. The most successful liberation movements in this country -- rights for African Americans and women -- happened because very wise people such as Susan B. Anthony and Dr. Martin Luther King pursued NON-violent resistance. This is the only kind of protest most Americans will accept.

Ghand and MLK tactics work against liberal countries: the UK and US.
Teh Chicoms are brutal oppressors.
Terrorism is unacceptable, but hitting miltary targets seems quite appropriate.

[Pearls Before Swine]

I don't blame you for distrusting Muslims. I just think that history matters.

I think history matters, too. That's my problem. Recent history has not been kind. Muslims with media access have only compounded it in the past year.

[Gangchen_gonpo]

There is no intent to condone or advocate violence, but to simply point out the facts. Desperation leads people to violence is what he said and today it is crazed individuals acting randomly (if I may be so bold to interpret his words.)

As far as the 'blame' game goes, the Chinese government has used the US government's pronouncement to effect another crackdown to the many that began in 1997. Tens of thousands have been jailed and tortured and many executed. The person holding the cattle prods and locking the prison doors isn't an American.

But what is being told to the people inside East Turkestan is that Uyghur activists are being rounded up and arrested as terrorists in the United States. From the 60 or so supposed members of the ETIM, thousands are being rounded up and being charged with belonging.
The Chinese media is using the designation to inflict harm and making it appear that the US agrees to everything. Just like when Butchers of TianAnMen visited with PotUS in the White House.

Now, if the US rescinds the designation because the PRC was using that designation as an excuse to commit acts of cultural genocide, that would be good.

[GOP_1900AD]

It really amazes me how quickly the West fell for the ruse of labelling them as "terrorists." The reason? A grand strategy of course. In the US, there are now people who say "the PRC could not POSSIBLY have aided Al Qaida... why, they have THEIR OWN MUSLIM PROBLEM!..."

Mission accomplished by the CCP propagandists. The West will no longer investigate the seemingly open linkages from the PLA to the ISI to Al Qaida to Abu Sayyaf, etc. The West have also fallen for a similar ruse vis a vis Russia and their Chechens. And yet, under no circumstances have the real GLOBAL terrorists such as Al Qaida EVER launched any sort of major attack against either PRC or Russian interests? Now why might that be? Here are some clues:

The PRC are part of the Trans-Asian Axis.... and are major sponsors of anti-Western terrorism. The truth cannot be hidden. As Beijing eyes the Strait of Malacca, and restive USSR2 looks on salivating, the duped idiotic Westerners sell their real allies down the road...

[FreedomPoster]

Turks are rarely Islamist. Historically, they have been the most tolerant of Muslims. This has to do with a cultural tradition of allowing peoples to practice any religion they wanted.

Like being tolerant of the Armenians' Christianity? That said, the Turks are as secular as Islamics get. Still, there's not a lot of religious diversity in Turkey.

[john in missouri]

Are you Uyghur as well?

[ellery]

That's absolutely horrible. I'll have to do more reading on this -- clearly I don't know enough about the situation. If there is truly no violence deliberately targeting civilians among the Uyghurs, I will pray for their liberation and cause.

[rmlew]

Like being tolerant of the Armenians' Christianity? That said, the Turks are as secular as Islamics get. Still, there's not a lot of religious diversity in Turkey.

1. The issue with the Armenians was ethnic not religious. It occured during World War 1 and the Armenians were aiding the Russians in the war. The Ottoman Empire was also fighting Muslim Arab insurgents. There was suffering on all sides.
I would also note that Kurds are Muslim.
2. 30% of the population is Alawite and 3% are Jewish or Christian. It is more diverse than most countries.

[TigerLikesRooster]

Re #14

"Gangchen Gonpo" sounds Tibetan to me.

[liberallarry]

...the Huns, Blue Turks, Avars, Bulghars, Magyars, Khazars,Uyghurs, Pechinegs, Black Hats, Ghuzz, Seljuk, Tatars, or Mongols

How in the world do you come by such detailed knowledge of an area of the world that hardly exists in American history and tradition?

[tictoc]

...the Huns, Blue Turks, Avars, Bulghars, Magyars, Khazars,Uyghurs, Pechinegs, Black Hats, Ghuzz, Seljuk, Tatars, or Mongols

Misunderstanding here. rmlew is talking about yoghurt cultures not Uighur culture.

[Consort]