What struck me as most interesting was suggestion, reflected by the camp’s (I am told rather sympathetic) commander, that current developments in the management of Guantanamo do not indicate that the United States is getting ready to close down the detention center.  Rather, the addition of a soccer field and the characterization of “Uyghurville” as an experiment in freer living show that the current administration, at least, is still expanding the facility and may plan to keep detainees there indefinitely.

Here’s a summary of the article:

Kurban Hemit and Abdurahman Azat were found guilty of illegally manufacturing firearms,  ammunition, and explosive devices, and of intentional homicide. For these crimes the two defendents were sentenced to death and permanent deprivation of legal rights.

According to case proceedings, Hemit and Azat were incited by extremist religious propaganda to carry out the attacks. In February and March of 2008 the two bought the materials necessary to manufacture guns, ammunition, and explosive devices. They also at this time began searching for targets and eventually settled on the officers of the Kashgar Frontier Defense Support Unit of the People’s Armed Police.

On August 4th, the two suspects used a stolen self-loading truck to transport all the materials they had created to a site near the police station. Then, at 8, when the police began their morning jog, Azat drove the truck into the soldiers, killing 15 and injuring 13. The vehicle lost control and crashed into the side of the road before flipping – as can be seen in this picture taken from the New York Times witness.

The official court account countinues: Azat then exited the truck, attempting to use the firearm he had created but to no effect – he then used oned of the explosives which successfully detonated and killed another individual. Hemit was not in the vehicle. Apparently, after the truck crashed, Hemit emerged from somewhere else wearing a summer uniform of the People’s Armed Police and began by throwing an explosive at the sentinel guarding the gate of the police station. Then he took out two knives and used them to hack at the soldiers injured from the truck collision, causing yet another death and two injuries. At this time, the surviving soldiers managed to apprehend both the perpetrators and a total of 17 people were killed and 12 injured.

Reading the Xinhua account immediately prompted me to go back and reread the only other existing account of events, the eyewitness testimony and pictures provided to the New York Times by a tourist who was across the street at the moment of the incident. The admittedly hot scoop hit the New York Times with a lot of fanfare, as indicated by the deliberately worded title “Doubt Arises in Account of Attack in China.” The point of the story, other than providing some amazing visuals and a surprising eyewitness account, was to sharply question the official version of events at the time, which then was still quite vague.

Among other discrepancies, the witnesses said that they heard no loud explosions and that the men wielding the machetes appeared to be paramilitary officers who were attacking other uniformed men.

That raises several questions: Why were the police wielding machetes? Were they retaliating against assailants who had managed to obtain official uniforms? Had the attackers infiltrated the police unit, or was this a conflict between police officers?

Quite interestingly I found that the terse yet nonetheless descriptive version of events put forward by Xinhua just yesterday meshes quite well with eyewitness testimony, which I believe is in one sense more reliable given the source (a bunch of tourists over a state run propaganda mouthpiece) but in a different way is more unreliable given the circumstances of the observation (unexpected, sudden eyewitness and reliance on human memory).

For example, the tourists noted that a non-uniformed individual staggered out of the truck after it crashed, greatly injured. This, we can postulate, was Azat. According to the Xinhua account most victims were indeed killed by the impact of the vehicle itself, and even if Azat were extremely incapacited on exiting the truck it is no stretch imagining him successfully using an explosive device after leaving.

The NYT account then says the scene turned even “more bizarre” when fighting started breaking out between uniformed officers. Should we look to the Xinhua account, this likely was when Hemit dashed into the scene wearing the same uniform as the other officers which would understandbly cause some confusion, both to the survivors and the eye witnesses. Enough confusion that the testimonies of the three eyewitnesses get a little muddled and contradictory at this point. The number of uniformed individuals doing the attacking is unclear among the eyewitnesses but is always “one or two,” which I would venture to say is within the margin of error for “one Kurbanjan Hemit wearing a police uniform plus the possibility of uniformed survivors retaliating.” I call attention to one of the eyewitness accounts in particular:

He said a man in a green uniform walked from the direction of the truck. “A policeman who wasn’t injured ran over and started hitting him with a machete,” the relative said. “He hit him a few times, then this guy started fighting him back.”After being hit several times by the machete, the uniformed man fell down, and at least one other police officer came over to kick him, the relative said.

An uninjured policemen suddenly appearing on the scene and attacking one officer with a machete until other policemen figure out what’s going on and take him down – it fits the Xinhua description. I feel that other discrepancies revealed by the New York Times account could also be explained by one of the perpetrators wearing a uniform – for example, why did officers carrying machetes freely mingle with other officers in the aftermath? Presumably after the attackers were subdued some of the surviving officers would be carrying the weapons of the perpetrators. Why were there uniformed officers hacking at bound individuals on the ground? Either they were seeing Hemit attacking prostrate, injured individuals, or possibly furious survivors using the perpetrators weapons against the suspects after they had been bound or detained. The bottom line is, if we take for granted that one of the attackers was indeed wearing a uniform, the ensuing chaos is enough to ensure that eyewitness testimonies would have their mental boundaries between “attackers and victims” quite mixed up.

I’ll take a moment to call out the New York Times on sloppy – or rather, greedy journalism. Interestingly, in the article written yesterday by the New York Times covering the sentencing was the only one that I saw that showed any evidence that they had someone look over the Chinese language press release. Unlike the AFP or Reuters, which simply mentions the whole deal in passing, the New York Times includes details from the press release. However, what they fail to mention at all is the Xinhua account’s claim that Hemit was wearing a police uniform.

At the same time, the Xinhua account said, Mr. Hemit tossed explosives toward the gate of the security compound and brandished a knife at the police officers who had been felled by the truck. Mr. Hemit killed one officer and wounded another, Xinhua said.

Shame on you, New York Times. By failing to mention that Xinhua at least alleges Hemit was wearing a uniform, the rather ungraciously decide not to acknowledge the state version of events steals some thunder from their exclusive eyewitness piece, which they in fact quite smugly link in yesterday’s article as still “at odds with aspects of the official version.” That may be true – the eyewitnesses didn’t hear explosions after the truck crash – but describing the press release while omitting the one major detail of the incident which would in many ways reconcile the eyewitness accounts with the state accounts was just bad journalism.

So, what of it? While the Xinhua version of events does mesh quite well with the only existing independent account of events, I still hesitate to go so far and say its the real deal. After all, if you want to ascribe really sinister motives to the PR machine of the CCP – and why wouldn’t we? – it’s completely possible that the story was fabricated precisely to be compatible with the one eyewitness account that “got away” and hit the Western press. Or, the Xinhua version, which was the product of a trial proceedings which probably included the interrogation of the suspects and a lengthy investigation, may indeed by exactly what happened on August 4th. Or it could be somewhere in between. I have to come to the conclusion that, sadly, as with most things Xinjiang, in spite of this extremely detailed account of events, independent observers still can’t make a solid call on what really went down, and why.

Regardless of how well the state version and the one independent testimony mesh together, there is still one magic ingredient missing, and that is transparency. A smoothly knit story does not a truthful one make. And again, the fault rests with the Chinese authorities. The fact of the matter is, if events occurred precisely as the authorities are now describing it, there is very little to lose, if not nothing at all, to be transparent with the global community about the evidence and the results of investigations related to the case itself. Coming forward with genuine evidence linking these two to greater Islamic extremism – after all, the article does mention the two to be victims of extremist propaganda – would provide more credibility to the PRC and their own domestic war on terror. By sharing with the Chinese public and the globe at large a 9/11 Commission report style document detailing all the relationships, preparations, and ideological motivations relevant to the attack, the authorities can finally provide a solid foundation to claims that they have been making for years – that the threat is real and must be dealt with. And while being open will assuredly draw in credibility, the opposite – jealously keeping all evidence and investigations under tight lock and only releasing court documents that must be accepted as truth – only damages credibility and causes critics, both domestic and abroad, what could possibly need hiding. Until the policy towards criminal investigations of terrorist incidents changes, people interesting in knowing what happened are only left with potentially compromised governmental accounts, and, if they’re lucky, a hapless tourist who ended up being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

A translation of the Xinhua article follows.

The Intermediate Level People’s Court of the Kashgar Prefecture in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region recently conducted, in accordance with the law, hearings regarding the August 4th violent terrorist attack against the police on in Kashgar, and has pronounced defendants Kurbanjan Hemit and Abdurahman Azat guilty of illegally manufacturing firearms, ammunition, and explosive devices, as well as first degree murder, sentencing them to death and lifelong deprivation of legal rights.

During proceedings at the Kashgar Prefecture Intermediate Level People’s Court it was revealed that the defendants Kurbanjan Hemit and Abdurahman Azat, over a long period of time, received religious extremist ideological propaganda and were incited to, on many occasions, premeditate and plan the theft of firearms, surprise attacks against military police forces, and violent terrorist activities such as explosions and assassinations.  On February and March of 2008, the two defendants purchased materials to produce firearms, ammunition, and explosives, illegally manufacturing 11 explosive devices, 2 firearms and much ammunition, and furthermore designated officers of the Kashgar Frontier Defense Support Unit of the People’s Armed Police as the target of their terrorist surprise attack. On August 4th, at around 6 in the morning, the two defendants used a stolen, heavy self-loading truck to bring their self-manufactured guns, ammunition, explosive devices and purchased knives and hatchets to an area near the Kashgar Prefecture Frontier Defense Support Unit station. At around 8, when the Armed Police officers were exiting the front gate of the Frontier Defense Support Unit station for their morning run, Abdurahman Azat, immediately drove in a mad dash towards the rear of the assembled soldiers, plowing into them and causing 15 deaths and 13 injuries before the truck lost control, collided into the side of the road, and flipped over. Abdurahman Azat exited the car and attempted to use his homemade firearm without success, and then proceeded to detonate one of the homemade explosive devices causing one death. Kurbanjan Hemit, wearing a People’s Armed Police summer uniform, first threw a homemade explosive device towards the sentinel posted at the front gate of the Frontier Defense Support Unit station, then went on to use two knives to hack at the soldiers injured by the truck, leading to one death and two injuries. The two defendants were arrested on the scene.

The Kashgar Prefecture Intermediate Level People’s Court maintains that the defendants Kurbanjan Hemit and Abdurahman Azat carried out violent terrorist activities, the illegal manufacture of 11 explosive devices, 2 firearms and ammunition, seriously harmed public security, and that the actions of these two individuals thus violate laws against the illegal production of firearms, ammunition, and explosives. The two defendants, with the aim of sabotaging the otherwise smooth opening of the Beijing Olympics and producing internationally felt adverse repercussions, carried out preparatory measures by observing several times when and where the Armed Police exercised, prepared the necessary criminal implements, using a vehicle, knives, and explosives to kill officers of the Armed Police, which is tantamount to the crime of intentional homicide. The actions of the two individuals resulted in 17 deaths and 15 injuries. It was a particularly vile plot, its methods particularly merciless, its harm on society extremely significant, and it ought to be punished according to the full extent of the law. The Kashgar Prefecture Intermediate Level People’s Court therefore passes the above described sentence in accordance with the law.

For many (read: the Chinese government) this will represent a measure of closure for for a rapid succession of terrorist incidents that occurred in Xinjiang right before the Olympics (and one right after). Granted, the two suspects sentenced yesterday are supposedly responsible for an incident that was merely one of many – still awaiting sentences are the the hijacking incident suspects (who may face a more protracted legal process as they possibly are citizens of Pakistan), suspects for the Kucha attack, and the old lady and 8 year old kid apprehended in Peziwat in an incident that probably occurred during pursuit of people connected to the Kucha attack. Nonetheless the Kashgar attack was the most violent and most clearly defined instance of violence with terrorist intent against agents of the sovereign government.

Or was it? In September a tourist traveling in Kashgar at the time gave the New York Times some pictures he took during the aftermath of terrorist attack and the only eyewitness account of it, which was, frankly, befuddling and vague but nonetheless was enough to cast doubt on the official version of things, should we decide to take the alleged eyewitness’ photos and testimony seriously. As usual, the whole incident is mired in doubt, suspicion, and, most crucially, a lack of clear information, meaning that one can only speculate and make insinuations with word choice. Like, China hands death sentence to Xinjiang attackers (Reuters), two ‘terrorists’ will be executed (AFP – scare quotes in original), and Two Uighurs sentenced to death (NYT) – all hesitating to come out and just say plain terrorist. Well, except for terrorists sentenced to death from the China Daily.  But the China Daily is not a newspaper known for being unsure about anything, is it? I’m sure there’s one thing all the outlets can agree on, and that’s the impending deaths of two Uyghurs named Abdurahman Azat and Kurbanjan Hemit.

新华网乌鲁木齐８月５日电  记者５日从新疆维吾尔自治区公安厅了解到，８月４日发生在新疆喀什的暴力袭击案件，警方在现场抓获两名犯罪嫌疑人，均为男性，喀什人，年龄分别为２８岁、３３岁，其中一人为出租车司机，另一人为菜贩

Xinhua Network, Urumqi, 5 August – Reporters have learned from the XUAR Public Security Department, that the two suspects apprehended after the violent surprise attack in Kashgar, Xinjiang are males, from Kashgar, are 28 and 33 years old, with one being a taxi driver and the other a vegetable seller.

The article also claims that the attacks were premeditated and that the 9 explosives and one home made gun were similar to the ones seized during the notorious raid on a “terrorist stronghold” in Akto last January. Interestingly, the article also mentions that somehow, from two of the “fearsome” knives retrieved from the scene of attack, the authorities are certain that “Holy War” was their motive.

Also, if you’re into, let’s call it “dark humor,” check out some of the gratuitous “artist’s conceptions” of the attack that ESWN pulled from the Hong Kong tabloid “Apple Daily”:

Go to ESWN’s page on the pictures for more sensational comic-book style images, including one where the nasty terrorist gets his arm blown off!

The internet has been positively buzzing the past few days over the sentencing of 15 Uyghurs for terrorist activities in Kashgar a few days ago, particularly because the trial was public and because it resulted in the instant executions of two of the suspects. While most of the major news agencies remain rather conservative with reporting on the details, the RFA article claims that according to a woman who was at the public trial (allegedly, the community members were forced to attend), the sentenced and executed individuals were the scheming terrorists who were apprehended during the Akto daring raid of January 2007. The RFA articles as well as the bigger news companies name the two executed parties as Mukhtar Setiwaldi and Abduweli Imin.

This is where things get slightly confusing for us writers here at The New Dominion.

I’d like to direct your attention to one of our very first posts way back in November, that’s when we were still maintaining the painstakingly time consuming “News Roundups” which involved taking Chinese language news stories and providing English language summaries. One of the more notable stories we found buried in Xinjiang’s massive and unorganized pile of Mandarin-language reports was a lengthy summary of a recently concluded terrorism case, where six individuals were sentenced for terrorism activities that had gone on for a year and a half until they were apprehended almost a year before, in January of 2007. I quote what we wrote then:

Six defendants in what has been dubbed the Kashgar “12-25″ Threat to National Security Case have been sentenced for attempting to split the country. Under the charges of splittist activities, organizing and leading a terrorist organization, and the illegal production of explosives, 4 death sentences and 2 life imprisonment sentences were passed down. The Xinhua article announcing this sentence also includes a detailed list of the alleged suspects’ activities, including running a terrorist training camp for two months with the Hollywood name of “Black Canyon,” conducting an explosives collecting operation dubbed “Operation Harvest Corn,” resisting PLA counterinsurgency efforts by sabatoging communications facilities, blowing up public buses, and occupying the Kusilafu village’s government building and declaring independence. Kusilafu is a village in Akto County (Location in Google Earth), a hotbed of resistance to Chinese rule.

Here’s the clincher: the two individuals who were singled out as ringleaders for the terrorism operation and summarily executed in November of 2007 were named Abduwali Yiming (阿不都外力·依明) and Muhataer Setiwalidi (穆合塔尔·色提瓦力迪) – or, the Chinese transliterations of Abduweli Imin and Mukhtar Setiwaldi.

So, therein lies the mystery: what exactly is going on here? RFA claims that on the 9th, these two individuals were executed summarily after a public trial, during which they were accused of plotting terrorist activities and managing a hidden terrorist base of operations starting from August 2005. The plot was broken up when the police raided their hideout in January of 2007. However, we found a Chinese language article describing an uncannily similar trial being conducted in November of last year, with the same charges against the same individuals, with the same result (two summary executions, two delayed executions, and a number of other non-capital sentences). I vividly remember recalling when we looked at the article at the time being quite surprised that no international news agencies were picking up on the execution of alleged East Turkestan terrorists – only to be quite surprised to find out they finally picked up the scent, only 8 months later. We are thus facing a time-traveling trial and execution: did this happen just a few days ago, or did it happen last November?

I think the most obvious evidence for the trial occuring in November is the fact that the Chinese-language article describing the trial and dated in November is still up and viewable. While it’s possible that the two immediate executions were stayed for 8 months, particularly in light of new laws in the PRC mandating that executions be reviewed by higher courts, even if that should be the case the fact remains that the trial was done a while ago, and not recently, unless this second, public trial was intended to be a show trial to intimidate the local Uyghurs. After all, if we do a little sleuthing, we find that the original source of this new information is indeed the RFA article (all the other articles out for now are just repeating what the RFA said), and thus the RFA could be mistaken, or, it possibly doesn’t have the complete picture. RFA is known for basing most of its stories on reports by disgruntled locals, Han, Uyghur, or otherwise, making clandestine calls to their international hotlines. Via this manner RFA may have learned from local Uyghurs that a show trial and execution occured, but may be unware of the official sentences passed in November.

The second possibility, more sinister, sheds light on the fact that the CCP regime, with its struggle between increasingly uncontrolled and rabidly nationalistic domestic “flash media” and completely uncontrolled foreign media, has adopted a strategy of sometimes providing different versions of events in Mandarin and in English – one for home consumers, one for abroad consumers. Again, I bring up how surprised I was that there was such a detailed report on the trial and sentencing of alleged Uyghur terrorists that hardly made a blip on the international media – we’re talking juicy, sensational stuff like snap executions and crazy Muslims storming town halls. But perhaps the Mandarin language report was deliberately shoved into the rather mundane procession of daily news rather than plasted all over front pages for a reason – so that the “International Edition” could be unleashed at a more strategic time, say, when China publishes reports on Uyghur terrorist activities over the past half year to justify its current anti-terrorism agenda.

Under the break, I have a full English-language translation of the Chinese language article from November. For some great “Law and Order” style drama and some crazy allegations of what these folks allegedly did during their reign of terror, read on:

Sentences have been pronounced in the Kashgar “12/25” Danger to National Security Case; 6 individuals will be punished for attempting to split the nation. (2007-11-09)

The sentences in the Kashgar “12/25” Danger to National Security Case, which was tried in a Kasghar Prefecture Mid-level People’s Court, were pronounced yesterday. Abuduwali Yiming and five other defendants were sentenced either to death or life imprisonment for the crimes of attempting to split the country, organizing and leading a terrorist organization, and illegally manufacturing explosives.

In order to achieve their secessionist goals, Abuduwali Yiming and the 5 defendants actively carried out extremist religious activities, declared “jihad,” organized a terrorist training camp, and made preparations to assist in the establishment of an “Islamic Caliphate” from August 2005 to January 2007.

Together the 6 defendants planned, organized, and implemented terrorist training activities, eventually recruiting several dozens of violent splittists to send to the “Black Canyon” terrorist camp, where they conducted training operations in secret for almost two months.

The 6 defendants also created a banner for their organization, drew up guiding principles and regulations, arranged goods and supplies for the terrorist training camp, manufactured explosives, and made preparations to conduct violent terrorist attacks.

The defendants twice conducted and participated in operations designed to seek out explosives-making materials, a campaign which they dubbed “Operation Harvest Corn.” They succeeded in acquiring 16 kilograms of explosives, eventually manufacturing 67 hand grenades and two suicide bombs.

The suspects formally established the “East Turkestan Islamic Party” and carried out two separate military operations while resisting capture by the authorities, during which the defendants destroyed communication lines, blew up buses, and occupied the Kusilafu Village government buildings to declare “independence.”

After the above-mentioned crimes were discovered by the authorities, the 6 defendants gathered a number of terrorists and began an organized military resistance against the armed police force sent to apprehend them, resulting in one injury and one death among the officers.

The court holds that Abuduwali Yiming and the 5 other defendants disregarded national law, demonstrated a long-term commitment to the reactionary thought of religious extremism, ethnic separatism, and violent terrorism, and vainly tried to split the nation and create an “Islamic Caliphate.” Moreover, they actively communicated with and sought aid from terrorist elements abroad and over a long period of time exploited religion to implant extremist ideology in the minds of other individuals, thus encouraging others to choose, adopt, accept, and seek out “second careers” as terrorist elements who engage in violent terrorist attacks, opposing national unity and socialism’s “dictatorship of the proletariat” system.

The actions of Abuduwali Yiming and the 5 other defendants constitute the crime of attempting to split the nation, the crime of organizing and leading a terrorist organization, and the crime of illegally manufacturing explosives. The judgments are as follows:

Defendant Abuduwali Yiming, for the crime of attempting to split the nation, is sentenced to death, permanent deprivation of all political rights, and confiscation of all personal property; for the illegal manufacture of explosives, death and permanent deprivation of all political rights; for organizing and leading a terrorist organization, life imprisonment and permanent deprivation of all political rights. The punishment has been set to death, permanent deprivation of all political rights, and confiscation of all personal property.

Defendant Muhataer Setiwalidi, for the crime of attempting to split the nation, is sentenced to death, permanent deprivation of all political rights, and confiscation of all personal property; for the illegal manufacture of explosives, death and permanent deprivation of all political rights; for organizing and leading a terrorist organization, life imprisonment and permanent deprivation of all political rights. The punishment has been set to death, permanent deprivation of all political rights, and confiscation of all personal property.

Defendant Kuerban Mamuti, for the crime of attempting to split the nation, is sentenced to deferred execution to be implemented after two years, permanent deprivation of all political rights, and confiscation of all personal property; for the illegal manufacture of explosives, deferred execution to be implemented after two years and permanent deprivation of all political rights; for organizing and leading a terrorist organization, life imprisonment and permanent deprivation of all political rights. The punishment has been set to deferred execution to be implemented after two years, permanent deprivation of all political rights, and confiscation of all personal property.

Defendant Aihemaiti Reheman, for the crime of attempting to split the nation, is sentenced to deferred execution to be implemented after two years, permanent deprivation of all political rights, and confiscation of all personal property; for the illegal manufacture of explosives, death and permanent deprivation of all political rights; for organizing and leading a terrorist organization, life imprisonment and permanent deprivation of all political rights. The punishment has been set to death, permanent deprivation of all political rights, and confiscation of all personal property.

Defendant Yimin Miman, for the crime of attempting to split the nation, is sentenced to life imprisonment, permanent deprivation of all political rights, and confiscation of all personal property; for the illegal manufacture of explosives, deferred execution to be implemented after two years and permanent deprivation of all political rights; for organizing and leading a terrorist organization, life imprisonment and permanent deprivation of all political rights. The punishment has been set to deferred execution to be implemented after two years, permanent deprivation of all political rights, and confiscation of all personal property.

Defendant Paerhati Yakufu, for the crime of attempting to split the nation, is given a mitigated sentence of life imprisonment due to “meritorious actions,” as well as permanent deprivation of all political rights and confiscation of all personal property; for the illegal manufacture of explosives, life imprisonment and permanent deprivation of all political rights; for organizing and leading a terrorist organization, 15 years of imprisonment and 5 years deprivation of political rights. The punishment has been set to life imprisonment, permanent deprivation of all political rights, and confiscation of all personal property.

News Link

On January 5th, 2007, Xinjiang Police Forces destroyed an “East Turkestan Movement” terrorist training camp.

It is now understood that key members of the ETM were dispatched to muster a group of terrorists and enter the PamirMountains to establish a terrorist training base and conduct terrorist training exercises. On January 5th, 2007, as police forces undertook capture operations, the terrorist elements conducted an armed resistance which resulted in the death of one police officer and the injury of another. The police forces managed to recover, killing 18 and capturing 17 terrorists and confiscating 22 homemade grenades and 1500 incomplete explosive devices.

Of course the answer is obvious: Uyghur terrorists!

So Mr. Sun,  23, Mr. Wu, 25, and Mr. Wang, 41 (Good Uyghur names, ah-yep) called in to an as of yet unamed company posing as East Turkestan terrorists and demanding that the above amount be wired to their bank account, or else! Or else they would blow up something. The conclusion hardly need be stated: the police were notified and the unlucky idiots were immediately identified by the personal information attached to the provided bank accounts and quickly arrested.

And that’s pretty funny. It’s funny because the guys put some effort into concocting the appropriate alternate identity without bothering to wonder if their bank accounts would give them away. It’s funny because when in April details about alleged foiled terrorist plans emerged, it really seemed crystal clear from the terrorists’ purported arsenal – athletes as hostages, poisoning foodstuffs, suicide bombers – that money really wasn’t a top priority for the phantom ETIM villains.

But in spite of everything our Chinese Larry, Moe, and Curly Joe got wrong, I think they got one tiny thing right, and that’s if there’s one costume to adopt that while cause people to sweat under the collar, if there’s one shadowy specter that will get give cadres the heeby-jeebies and get the armed police moving, it’s the Muslim Uyghur Terrorist. With the silly Olympic Mind Games occuring with the torch in Xinjiang and Tibet (China gets gold for the Fool-The-Terrorist-Switcheroo event) and ghost plots that may or may not have been real appearing and disappearing into the pre-Olympic haze, I think it’s becoming clear that the image of Uyghurs is evolving in the Han popular imagination. Sure, the dancing and singing part is there, but that’s only one half the dual mold that Uyghurs and jammed into – the other half, most readres will know, was “theives.” We saw it a few weeks ago when we looked at some joke maps circulating on the internet. And anyone who has told Han friends that they’re going to Xinjiang undoubtedly was told to watch out for pickpockets. But for the sake of building the foundation of a secure and stable Olympics, a new domestic enemy has been fabricated – no longer Uyghur the theif, now its Uyghur the terrorist. And even a few dumb saps in Shandong “know” that.