[QUOTE]China will join the war on ISIS after four of its citizens were killed by Islamist terror groups in two separate attacks this week.
The vow comes after ISIS claimed to have killed Beijing man Fan Jinghui, 50, alongside Norwegian national Ole Johan Grimsgaard-Ofstad, 48, who were feared to have been taken hostage in September.
Chinese President Xi Jinping: "China will strengthen cooperation with the international community, resolutely crack down on violent terrorist operations that devastate innocent lives and safeguard world peace and security."
He also called on the relevant departments to boost security work "outside China's borders".
ISIS had earlier published pictures of the two men in two full-page posters which listed the men as 'for sale' in its propaganda publication Dabiq.
The latest issue of the group’s in-house magazine featured images purporting to show the two men shot to death after being "abandoned by kafir nations and organisations”.Xi also today condemned the "cruel and savage" attack by militants on a hotel in Mali's capital that killed more than people yesterday, including three executives from a Chinese railway company.
“With no regard for human conscience and moral baseline, the terrorist organisation still carried out this cold-blooded and violent action,” he said.
“The Chinese government strongly condemns this inhuman action and will definitely hold the perpetrators accountable.”The announcement is grim news for ISIS - China has a vast military force with more than two million active personnel.
Gunmen shouting Islamic slogans attacked the Radisson Blu hotel in Bamako yesterday, before Malian commandos stormed the building and freed 170 hostages, many of them foreigners.
The three Chinese citizens killed in the hotel attack were executives from the state-owned China Railway Construction Corp , the company said in a statement on its website."China Railway Construction Corp is deeply saddened by the deaths of the three employees, and we express our deep condolences to the victims' families and strongly condemn the atrocities committed by the terrorists," it said.
Zhou Tianxiang and Wang Xuanshang, general manager and deputy general manager of the company's international division, and Chang Xuehui, general manager of its West Africa division, were killed, the statement said.
The Foreign Ministry said four other Chinese nationals were among the rescued hostages.
A man who worked for a Belgian regional parliament and an American aid worker were also killed. Moscow said Russians were also among the victims.Beijing has repeatedly denounced Islamist militants and urged the world to step up coordination in combating Islamic State, though it has been reluctant to get involved on theground in Syria and Iraq where the group largely operates.
The attack on the hotel was claimed by jihadist group Al Mourabitoun and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), and is the latest in a series of deadly raids this year in Mali, which has battled Islamist rebels based in its desert north for years.Speaking of the ISIS hostage killings, Norwegian Foreign Minister Borge Brende, said the government had been sent pictures and videos along with demands for ransom for the release of Mr Grimsgaard-Ofstad, who he said had been "harshly mistreated."
He added: "We have no grounds to doubt the contents of the photos that have been published."
President Erna Solberg called the killing “painful for the whole country” but stated that the country did not pay ransoms.
Neither China and Norway have joined the US-led coalition and Russia in carrying out air strikes in ISIS held territory in Syria and Iraq.[/QUOTE]
Source: [url]http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/china-declares-war-isis-after-6862200[/url]
the rest of the world might as well declare war on ISIS at this point
who knew it took a terrorist force to unite a bunch of world superpowers
Doesn't seem like they're going to actually join the bombing campaign despite the article seemingly straining to imply as much. I'm not sure how they'd even do that with no bases in the region or operational aircraft carriers, and it would be a fucking earth-shattering development in the evolution of Chinese foreign policy.
[QUOTE=SonicHitman;49162196]the rest of the world might as well declare war on ISIS at this point[/QUOTE]
bitch we ain't declaring war.
We have trouble protecting one damn prosecutor and can't find the responsible people for his death.
Like, our own cops staged a riot a couple of years ago
Or that some missiles were stolen from our military bases
Or our planes keep falling from the Sky
Nah, I'd like them to keep ignoring us like "Oh what's in America? Argentina? And those guys? Are they supporting war against us? No? Oh well we might have to bomb the fuck out of Bra-CHILE"
See? Two birds with one stone
PS: Obviously I would like my country to support the war against ISIS
PS2: You aren't thinking I would really like Chile to be bombed, aren't you?
EDIT: Eh fuck it. We'll just send you guys cows and soy, and we aren't at war with ISIS. Everybody's happy now, ja?
If Isis wasn't fucked before they're definitely fucked now
Wouldn't this also be a good excuse for China to persecute the Uyghers even more though?
[QUOTE=smurfy;49162201]Doesn't seem like they're going to actually join the bombing campaign despite the article seemingly straining to imply as much. I'm not sure how they'd even do that with no bases in the region or operational aircraft carriers, and it would be a fucking earth-shattering development in the evolution of Chinese foreign policy.[/QUOTE]
The Chinese government is very afraid of getting involved in the Middle East. When news broke about the executions, they were censoring news about it on Weibo to keep the public from demanding action. They see stability as the most important factor in keeping their jobs, and watching the US and USSR's adventures in the region taught them that involvement there has the opposite effect.
[QUOTE=Wii60;49162198]who knew it took a terrorist force to unite a bunch of world superpowers[/QUOTE]
Ozymandias
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;49162210]bitch we ain't declaring war.
We have trouble protecting one damn prosecutor and can't find the responsible people for his death.
Like, our own cops staged a riot a couple of years ago
Or that some missiles were stolen from our military bases
Or our planes keep falling from the Sky
Nah, I'd like them to keep ignoring us like "Oh what's in America? Argentina? And those guys? Are they supporting war against us? No? Oh well we might have to bomb the fuck out of Bra-CHILE"
See? Two birds with one stone
PS: Obviously I would like my country to support the war against ISIS
PS2: You aren't thinking I would really like Chile to be bombed, aren't you?
EDIT: Eh fuck it. We'll just send you guys cows and soy, and we aren't at war with ISIS. Everybody's happy now, ja?[/QUOTE]
What if we trick ISIS into claiming the Falklands are theirs? Would that get Argentina into the war?
Considering the fact that no other middle eastern war has had this level of support, i'd say ISIS are finished
Maybe we will find if alien life is a myth or not since ISIS is so good at pissing everyone off
Considering everyone is banding together against ISIS, I still wonder how people can keep calling out WW3. If it's all the world vs. ISIS, is that really WW3?
[QUOTE=X_Sam;49162654]Considering everyone is banding together against ISIS, I still wonder how people can keep calling out WW3. If it's all the world vs. ISIS, is that really WW3?[/QUOTE]
We're not banding together. China has its interests in a stable Africa (no boko haram), and Russia has its interest in propping up assad (bombing the non-ISIS guys we're supporting). Hopefully we can pull it together but don't think that Russia and China aren't going to try to play all these situations to their benefit. If russia agrees to a new secular leader of Syria after assad, we may be able to play ball there, but this is by no means a cooperative mission. It's a free for all to see who can exploit the destabilization to get what they want.
[editline]22nd November 2015[/editline]
The world is just as fucked up as it was 3 years ago. There are no good guys
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49162690]We're not banding together. China has its interests in a stable Africa (no boko haram), and Russia has its interest in propping up assad (bombing the non-ISIS guys we're supporting). Hopefully we can pull it together but don't think that Russia and China aren't going to try to play all these situations to their benefit. If russia agrees to a new secular leader of Syria after assad, we may be able to play ball there, but this is by no means a cooperative mission. It's a free for all to see who can exploit the destabilization to get what they want.
[editline]22nd November 2015[/editline]
The world is just as fucked up as it was 3 years ago. There are no good guys[/QUOTE]
But it's not WW3, right?
[QUOTE=X_Sam;49162697]But it's not WW3, right?[/QUOTE]
No, there won't be nukes flying left and right, but America, China and Russia have histories of shooting each other when we disagree over who's going to rule what country. Proxy wars. It's just sad. Really sad that history continues to repeat itself.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49162690]We're not banding together. China has its interests in a stable Africa (no boko haram), and Russia has its interest in propping up assad (bombing the non-ISIS guys we're supporting). Hopefully we can pull it together but don't think that Russia and China aren't going to try to play all these situations to their benefit. If russia agrees to a new secular leader of Syria after assad, we may be able to play ball there, but this is by no means a cooperative mission. It's a free for all to see who can exploit the destabilization to get what they want.
[editline]22nd November 2015[/editline]
The world is just as fucked up as it was 3 years ago[/QUOTE]
While pretty much everyone is using their attacks on ISIS as a smokescreen for their other motives, everyone [I]is[/I] still going after ISIS and their subsidiaries. We're banded together at least on that.
More to the point, most of NATO is allied on their "secret" motive (stabilizing Syria with a liberal secular rebel0, and that's a pretty big alliance. Russia isn't going it alone either - Iran shares the same "secret goal" of rescuing the Assad regime, although their reasons are subtly different.
I'm not even sure if China will be going it alone. There's already an anti-Boko Haram coalition (Benin, Chad, Cameroon, Niger, Nigeria, US, UK, France, Israel, Canada), and if China's primary motive is "stabilize these countries so we can make more money selling them shit", well, that's in alignment with US and the rest. On purely goal-based grounds I see no reason they can't work with us. Only shortsighted politics would prevent it.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;49162728]While pretty much everyone is using their attacks on ISIS as a smokescreen for their other motives, everyone [I]is[/I] still going after ISIS and their subsidiaries. We're banded together at least on that.
More to the point, most of NATO is allied on their "secret" motive (stabilizing Syria with a liberal secular rebel0, and that's a pretty big alliance. Russia isn't going it alone either - Iran shares the same "secret goal" of rescuing the Assad regime, although their reasons are subtly different.
I'm not even sure if China will be going it alone. There's already an anti-Boko Haram coalition (Benin, Chad, Cameroon, Niger, Nigeria, US, UK, France, Israel, Canada), and if China's primary motive is "stabilize these countries so we can make more money selling them shit", well, that's in alignment with US and the rest. On purely goal-based grounds I see no reason they can't work with us. Only shortsighted politics would prevent it.[/QUOTE]
Can I highlight this:
[quote]Only shortsighted politics would prevent it.[/quote]
Asia is the definition of short sighted politics. The entire east asian region refuses to be civil to one another because of a war that today's politicians had no part in
[QUOTE=smurfy;49162201]Doesn't seem like they're going to actually join the bombing campaign despite the article seemingly straining to imply as much. I'm not sure how they'd even do that with no bases in the region or operational aircraft carriers, and it would be a fucking earth-shattering development in the evolution of Chinese foreign policy.[/QUOTE]
Well they have become steadily more aggressive in foreign affairs recently as Xi leads a nationalist revival, so I wouldn't be too surprised, but I'm willing to bet this move is more to justify their actions against the insurgency in Xinjiang.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;49162210]bitch we ain't declaring war.
We have trouble protecting one damn prosecutor and can't find the responsible people for his death.
Like, our own cops staged a riot a couple of years ago
Or that some missiles were stolen from our military bases
Or our planes keep falling from the Sky
Nah, I'd like them to keep ignoring us like "Oh what's in America? Argentina? And those guys? Are they supporting war against us? No? Oh well we might have to bomb the fuck out of Bra-CHILE"
See? Two birds with one stone
PS: Obviously I would like my country to support the war against ISIS
PS2: You aren't thinking I would really like Chile to be bombed, aren't you?
EDIT: Eh fuck it. We'll just send you guys cows and soy, and we aren't at war with ISIS. Everybody's happy now, ja?[/QUOTE]
What?
[QUOTE=SonicHitman;49162196]the rest of the world might as well declare war on ISIS at this point[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure the UN security council declaring war on somebody is as close to a worldwide declaration of war one can get
[editline]22nd November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Amfleet;49162338]The Chinese government is very afraid of getting involved in the Middle East. When news broke about the executions, they were censoring news about it on Weibo to keep the public from demanding action. They see stability as the most important factor in keeping their jobs, and watching the US and USSR's adventures in the region taught them that involvement there has the opposite effect.[/QUOTE]
One does not get involved in the middle East anymore, the middle East gets involved with them. China has been making backroom deals with Iran trading weapons for oil, as well as cash for oil while they were under sanctions. People want to stereotype the US being in things purely for oil but you can't point to any foreign involvement china has had in the last decade that wasn't about securing resources
China got involved the minute they voted with Russia to perpetuate this conflict, now their Muslim population which is severely depressed has been acting up and they probably are very concerned about isis affiliates popping up in the regions that have historically had conflict
I hope this doesnt evolve in to a WW3
[QUOTE=cNova;49163331]I hope this doesnt evolve in to a WW3[/QUOTE]
But who would stand on ISIS' side?
[QUOTE=cNova;49163331]I hope this doesnt evolve in to a WW3[/QUOTE]
That's an unreasonable statement with no base what so ever. You people keep saying plz no ww3 when there is literally no reason for there to be one.
Its literally every world superpower gang banging the fuck out of a massive terrorist organization in a shit hole country nobody in the Western world gives two fucks about. How that seems to imply the possibility of WW3 is beyond my imagination.
[QUOTE=X_Sam;49163347]But who would stand on ISIS' side?[/QUOTE]
Honestly at this point I'd be all for just letting turkey take/annex Syria and Saudi Arabia taking/annexing Iraq if it meant stabilizing the regions long-term.
But to answer your question? The same people who already stand on their side, disenfranchised Muslims who don't feel their future has any hope, and depending on how Ham-fisted the involved parties are when dealing with ISIS, the number of those could drastically increase.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49163373]Honestly at this point I'd be all for just letting turkey take/annex Syria and Saudi Arabia taking/annexing Iraq if it meant stabilizing the regions long-term.
But to answer your question? The same people who already stand on their side, disenfranchised Muslims who don't feel their future has any hope, and depending on how Ham-fisted the involved parties are when dealing with ISIS, the number of those could drastically increase.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but, US + Europe + Russia + China(Kinda) vs some Muslims.
Seems a bit imbalanced. Isn't a World War where most of the world is fighting each other?
Islam has 1.6 Billion followers in the world (more than 20% of the globe's population), if not more. If we don't tread carefully here the potential for destruction is vastly more than the the world has seen before if even a tiny fraction of those became militant.
To give you something to reference the estimate of dead caused by world war II hovers around 70-80 million (depending on how you include famine, sickness, and general instability caused by the war itself). [url]http://www.shmoop.com/wwii/statistics.html[/url]
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49163464]Islam has 1.6 Billion followers in the world (more than 20% of the globe's population), if not more. If we don't tread carefully here the potential for destruction is vastly more than the the world has seen before if even a tiny fraction of those became militant.
To give you something to reference the estimate of dead caused by world war II hovers around 70-80 million (depending on how you include famine, sickness, and general instability caused by the war itself). [url]http://www.shmoop.com/wwii/statistics.html[/url][/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure there's a large majority of those 1.6 billion Islamists that aren't radicals. I'd argue that the amount of radical Islamists are dwarfed by the good ones.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;49163464]Islam has 1.6 Billion followers in the world (more than 20% of the globe's population), if not more. If we don't tread carefully here the potential for destruction is vastly more than the the world has seen before if even a tiny fraction of those became militant.
To give you something to reference the estimate of dead caused by world war II hovers around 70-80 million (depending on how you include famine, sickness, and general instability caused by the war itself). [url]http://www.shmoop.com/wwii/statistics.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Cause most Muslims are extremists, right guys?
If 0.065% of their population is or becomes radical, that's over a million. All I'm saying is that we need to tread carefully.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
