I'm willing to be that the Chinese would be just as violently oppressive to Christians who threaten their rule, as they are with Muslims. Just look at what they do to Fulan Gong. It is not the religion but the threat to their rule that the Chinese rulers fear.

As for our War on Terror, it is primarily focused on Muslims because we are primarily threatened by Muslims. If there were Buddhists or Hindus declaring jihad (or the equivalent) against the US, flying planes into our buildings and teaching their children that we are the source of their misery (not their own malevolent leaders), then we would be fighting the Buddhists and the Hindus.

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but most of the terrorists who have declared war on the US are Muslims.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/07/at-least-140-dead-in-ethnic-violence-in.html#174110

And let us remember that this is the Uighers. The Muslim "breakaway province" in China. The Chinese just cannot let the Islamist Faction there get out of control. The Uighers are responsible for the Deaths of many Chinese Police Officers. The Uighers also tried to Bomb the Olympics. The plot was foiled by the Chinese. Islamist Radicals, if left free to their own "Religion Of Peace" the growth of converts and violence begins to grow expotentially.

- - Agent 99

__________

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/07/at-least-140-dead-in-ethnic-violence-in.html#174205

I'm willing to bet that the Han Chinese did not start the riots. Islam is involved, pretty obvious who resorted first to violence.

"The government blamed Uighur exiles for stoking the unrest." I'm willing to believe that. Wherever islam goes, it creates unrest at best, bloody murder at worst.

- - Andreas K.

__________

In my analysis racism is a tool, not a cause, with regard to foreign policy.

While at times it is useful to declare certain groups others, to soften the human toll of war, and political upheaval, such declarations are for the most part, made more for the collateral effect than a guiding philosophy.

There are those who do subscribe to such philosophy, and they likely do see such rhetoric as part and parcel of policy, but we have been blessed by and large in the U.S. that such ideologues have generally been at the fringe of our politics rather than at the heart of our policies.

Some southern senators feared african americans, but most simple feared the outcome, politically and economically of an ending of thier system. It is a subtle distinction to make, and likely means nothing to those who endured the policies, however that differnce allows for an alteration in policies with relative ease once the political wind changes, where as for countries where the philosophy superceeds the policy such changes are more difficult.

Some people see the U.S. as more philosophically oriented than politically oriented. I however am not one of them, and with such persons I would have to agree to disagree.

What if China weren't holding so very much of our "paper"?

Supporting the Taliban was a win-win for us ... even if they were Muslim ... because it made our best-buddies the Saudis happy with us.

While the Saudi's might possibly welcome our "pressure" on China ... what a difference 20 years and 2 wars can make...

Not all muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists have been muslims. This is the standard right-wing argument in making out Islam as a violent religion. But is it really religion or geography, that makes a "terrorists"? Alqaeda and other terrorists groups come from the Middle East and other 3rd world countries. Countries that have suffered for centuries under imperial and economic exploitation. Places like Iran where the US overthrew their democratically elected leader, installed a brutal dictator, all so we could have cheap access to their oil. When any group is oppressed, they are going to fight back against their oppressors. Oppressors never acknowledge the legitamacy of the oppressed to fight back. The religion of the terrorists is not what motivates them, it's the fact that they are being oppressed and exploited.

The U.S. has become entirely powerless when it comes to dealing with China. This is the ugly truth and I think it is more of a driver here than the religious beliefs of the Uighurs. Imagine if they were Christians? What would/could the U.S. do. Nothing, I'm afraid.

In the face of countless abuses of its people, including but not limited to Uighurs, women and political dissidents, the U.S. and other western countries are powerless to pressure China in any meaningful way. Our politicians and our corporations (especially the latter) are beholden to China and can levy no criticism. Think back to the Olympics this time last year. No politician, sponsor or advertiser dared criticize the Chinese for human rights abuses. Think back a few years earlier to The Masters golf tournament. Sponsors dropped like flies because the event is hosted golf club that doesn't allow women to join. Many of those same sponsors proudly affiliated themselves with a sporting event hosted by a country that oppresses hundreds of millions of people. We have no leverage over China and that's a shame for the Uighurs and China's other victims.

Are we to take your word on it, Mr. Greenwald, that we've been detaining Uighurs in Guantanomo simply because they're Muslim? Somehow I suspect there's more to the story.

Unlike other times and instances of flat out religious persecution, there are rational and authoritative voices of moderation being heard both within Muslim communities and without, including that of our own president. There are also actions being taken by a great many churches, as well as wise teachers in schools across the country, to encourage and enhance Muslim-tolerant attitudes and cultural awareness.

As for why we wouldn't want to just release long held Uighur prisoners to the U.S., gee... It isn't exactly rocket science - these people have never held an allegiance to the U.S. in any way or form, and after years and years of imprisonment if not also torture we most likely have some tigers by the tail now.