foundit66

BEIJING (Reuters) - President Bush should scrap his unilateral approach and respect religious diversity in his "war on terror" to resolve troubles in Iraq, a senior Chinese official said in comments published on Thursday.

Recent anti-war protests across the United States illustrated that the Iraq war was unjust, Ye Xiaowen, director of the State Bureau of Religious Affairs, wrote in the overseas edition of People's Daily, the mouthpiece of the ruling Communist Party, in rare public criticism of U.S. policy.

Ye's bureau oversees Christianity, Buddhism and Islam in the atheist country which only tolerates state-sanctioned religious institutions.

He criticized inflammatory terms such as "crusade" and "Islamic fascism" which Bush had used in the past when speaking of the fight against terrorism and Muslim militants.

"How can you link anti-terrorism with a particular religion?" Ye asked in a commentary headlined "Bush should reflect deeply".

Washington thought it could use Christian civilization to reform Islam but elections and the downfall of Saddam Hussein had transformed Iraq into a "meat grinder" that engulfed innocent lives instead of creating a haven for democracy, Ye added.

"Unilateralism and terrorism breed each other, fight each other, but neither can overcome the other," he wrote. "Terrorism cheats people under the disguise of religion. Why should unilateralism hijack religion as well?

"Amid the pains, can the U.S. try to abandon unilateralism and respect that differences can exist in harmony?" he asked.

China has backed Bush's "war on terror", but human rights groups say it has used that support to justify a wider crackdown on its Muslim Uighur minority characterized by arbitrary arrests, closed trials and executions.

Beijing has waged a campaign in the far-western region of Xinjiang against what it calls Islamic extremists and says Uighur militants are linked to a group agitating for an independent "East Turkestan".

In recent years, China has also promoted the idea that civilizations should co-exist and respect each others' differences, in part to counter Western attacks on its one-party rule and human rights record.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...src=rss&rpc=22

__________________
"(Gay marriage) is a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish."
-- Jon Stewart
"Please don't judge others by your own standards."
-- Garysher

Katczinsky

Tyranny and genocide in Tibet isn't exactly 'co-existing', nor is it respecting each others' differences and religions. This Ye Xiaowen speaks the truth on Iraq, but he's showing the epitome of this hyper-hypocritical state of China.

__________________
Political Compass:

Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72

hkbajwa

"How can you link anti-terrorism with a particular religion?" Ye asked in a commentary headlined "Bush should reflect deeply".

Amazing question. Only i don't think anti-terrorism is linked to christianity.. it is linked to "americanism".. It seems that today you can only be anti-terrorist if you are pro-american.. As Bush himself clearly stated "you are either with us or against us" ( fabulously stupid, polarising and frankly aggressive ole western jargon )

One of the things i have consistently tried to convince certain members of this forum of is the fact that i am anti-terrorism AS WELL AS against US foreign policy and actions.

However as Ye points out, anti-terrorism seems to require a complete set of beliefs and allegiances before it is accepted by america as truly against terrorism.

__________________
Love for all, Hatred for none

hkbajwa

Yeah but let's face it. The chinese are better at it than lets say ummmm BUSH

__________________
Love for all, Hatred for none

Antithesis

Agreed. I think China might just be jumping on the bandwagon with the rest of the world on this one. They don't care about the plight of the Iraqis. That or it fears Iraq will inspire rebellions within its own country.

__________________
"Every time I hear the phrase 'Christian nation' I run to my car and blast a Slayer album at full volume." - Me

sgtdmski

China has already seen rebellion. That age-old one that shows statist policies cannot forever hold down the individual. More and more China is accepting free market ideas and more and more their economy is growing.

Anti-terrorism is not linked with a particular religion, however, the glaring facts cannot be ignored, it is the muslim extremes or as now called the islamofascists that wish to impose their beliefs on others through the use of force and terrorism.

As far as the policy of being either with us or against us, well, throughout our country's history we have fought for the sovereign right of the individual to be free, so again I must asked if you are not in agreement with this, then you must be in agreement that the individual should be dominated by the state.

dmk

__________________
Conservatism, I repeat is not an ideology. It does not breed fanatics....But if you want men who seek, reasonably and prudently, to reconcile the best in wisdom of our ancestors with the change which is essential to a vigorous civil social existence, then you will do well to turn to conservative principles
-Russell Kirk-

hkbajwa

Well the chinese civlization has always been pragmatic. t is a simple fact that the free market economy has a better future than the state run autocratic economy of China. Hence it is hardly surprising that they are slowly adopting that model.
Yeah but these "islamofascists" are as intent on imposing their beliefs on the ordinary muslim citizen as on the "infidel pagans". So it isn't really the religion that is the causative factor, but rather a host of other things.
Incidentally TERRORISM isn't a tactic to impose your will on others. It is by its very nature a tactic that can only be used when you have no responsibility for governance and administration. It is ALWAYS a symbolic action and at the MOST playing a psychological role. So even these islamofascists aren't planning on establishing sharia governments by the continuous bombing of innocents. Terrorism is only a tactic they employ due to the fact that they are SO FEW.
Anyhow i agree that there are people in the world who wish to impose sharia on the the rest of the world population. HOWEVER mind you that the PRIME objective stated even by all islamofacists is REACTION to PERCEIVED AGGRESSION. Ask a terrorist and he is trying to liberate the muslims from american dominance, the palestinians from Israeli aggression or the Iraqis from the *giggle* "Colalition of the Willing".
Well there you go again assuming that the US has monopoly on "freedom" and the method of spreading "freedom". In fact you also assume that YOUR understanding of "freedom" is the only true one.

As a result you also believe that THE ONLY WAY to espouse and spread "freedom" is the AMERICAN WAY. Isn't that just a wee bit arrogant?

I have no doubt that you genuinely believe that the american way is the best way to bring freedom and democracy to people.. however to assume that it is the ONLY way is completely wrong.

I ask you this.. can one agree with america on the principle of spreading freedom and democracy , and DISAGREE on the method to go about that?

THAT is the problem i have with the "with us or against us" crap. Disagreeing with the US does NOT automatically mean that one is an evil tyrant who wishes death and destruction.

This is also what i have been harping on about for almost a year now on this forum.. just because i think US foreign policies are stupid and destructive, it is even dumber to assume that automatically makes me against peace, democracy, equality and tolerance.

No offense sarge but it is this arrogant assumption of ownership of the "truth" that will ultimately wind up biting the US in the ass... Incidentally that is also what will bite AQ in the ass, but that's not relevant to this thread.

Regarding dominance of the state.. well the danish state dominates my life.. it gives me free healthcare, free education, and guaranteed housing. It also ensures that my taxes are paid on time, that i get paid adequately at any job i work at, that i have guaranteed old age pension and support. In fact it ensures that i don't have to worry about most of the crummy things in life.
While you may curl your toes at such state interference, well i don't assume that my government is against me. The government is made up of the people. The government can also only be doing well if the people are happy.

So does that make me against freedom?? i think not. In fact i believe that securing basic necessities for your population gives GREATER freedom.

But there we go again.. we agree on the principle.. bu we disagree on how it should be implemented.. Well obviously I'M wrong because YOU are AMERICAN.

__________________
Love for all, Hatred for none