CNN頭條報道北京天安門10.28恐怖事件 同情實施犯罪新疆恐怖分子
【編者按】：**一向自詡為“客觀公正”、“傳播普世正義”的西方媒體，遇到中國的事情就露出另一番面目。**10·28天安門恐怖案已造成40多名無辜遊客死傷。全世界善良的大眾，無論其宗教背景，無論其對中國的態度，都為死難者哀悼，法國總統奧朗德表達了“感同身受”的哀慟。然而此時，聽聽那些西方媒體説了什麼？
在BBC（英國廣播公司）的報道中，恐怖分子、嫌疑人等詞上打上引號，表現出對嫌疑人身份的不認可**；CNN（美國有線電視新聞網****）今天頭條發問“是恐怖主義還是絕望的吶喊？”**文中寫道“看看這些簡陋的器具，汽油、刀具、鐵棍，吉普車，怎麼看都很難把這些聯想成高度組織的恐怖行為”，“怎麼理解這次襲擊，只要看看09年以來新疆日益增加的民族矛盾就可明瞭，新疆的維族人，他們的生活和中華人民共和國的公民大相徑庭”。
在CNN們的眼裏，恐怖分子成了“值得同情的被壓迫者”，而死在他們車輪下的人們，無論是菲律賓人、日本人、中國人，都不值一提。CNN更在意的是中國內部的民族衝突，並加劇這種撕裂。CNN們殷殷盼望的，是一個瀰漫在恐怖裏的黑暗中國，是揚灑更多的血，是中華民族的自戕，是中華大地永無寧日的分裂和混戰。
被CNN們覆蓋的讀者，如果您生活在這樣“講求客觀”的媒體合力操控下，變成了恐怖分子的同情者，我們對您絲毫不埋怨，因為在那裏，污衊中國的力量太強大，讓任何為中國辯護的聲音都被吞沒抹殺；如果您保持最基本的底線，堅持常識，沒被這樣的荒謬誤導，我們依然為您將持續沉浸在如此強大的“指鹿為馬”的媒體環境中難過。
我們把CNN們的報道原樣呈現在下面：
CNN:天安門衝撞案：恐怖主義還是絕望的吶喊？
作者Sean R. Roberts是喬治華盛頓大學的助理教授。他對中國新疆區域頗有研究，近期發表關於哈薩克斯坦的維吾爾人著作。
北京天安門廣場發生的事件造成5人死亡，數十人受傷，但這是否像官方消息所説的那樣，是一起嚴重的恐怖主義威脅？
中國安全部門稱，這一駕駛吉普車衝入人羣並縱火的行為是“經過嚴密策劃，有組織有預謀的”暴力恐怖襲擊案件，由一夥來自新疆的維族伊斯蘭極端分子策劃實施。
不幸的是，鑑於中國對維吾爾人政治暴力的定罪上一向缺乏透明度，我們可能永遠無法知道對週一的事件的定性是否準確。
我們知道的是中國安全部門聲稱襲擊者在那輛車上，全部死亡，包括一名維族男子，他的妻子和母親。另外，中國官媒的消息稱逮捕了另外5名涉案嫌犯。
這些襲擊者來自於像基地組織這樣的跨國聖戰網絡的一個分支嗎？他們是像伊斯蘭青年軍這樣有組織的武裝運動的代表嗎？後者剛剛襲擊了肯尼亞的一個商場。
看看這些據稱是襲擊者使用的原始工具吧——汽油、刀子、鐵棍和一輛吉普車，很難説這是任何一個高度有組織、裝備良好的叛軍或恐怖分子團伙所為。
襲擊沒有使用複雜的爆炸物，嫌犯甚至連槍都沒有。而且，儘管維族人是穆斯林，沒有任何證據表明他們實際上參與了全球性的穆斯林激進運動。
所以，假如這起暴力事件僅僅是一户維族家庭實施的，那麼我們怎麼理解這個行為？
很明顯，只要看看新疆日益增加的漢維民族矛盾，你就可以明瞭為什麼發生今天的事情，自09年夏天新疆首府烏魯木齊發生的民族暴力事件以來，民族爭端愈演愈烈。
在新疆的維族人，他們的生活和中華人民共和國的公民大相徑庭。
CNN頭條發文：恐怖主義還是絕望的吶喊？
在過去10年，中國政府把新疆變成得警察遍佈，他們加強對維吾爾族居民的監控，並嚴重壓縮了維族宗教活動。
同時中國政府大規模削減維族人接受他們本民族語言教育的權利，同時限制了維族語言的出版物數量。
中國官方將這些手段都解釋成它反恐的一部分，稱此舉動將保障國家安全。
這些方法通常也包括抓捕大量的維族人，罪名是“非法從事宗教活動”或者“和恐怖組織有關聯”。
而實際上，單單就這個月而言，新疆的安全部門在不同場合將一些維吾爾族好戰分子擊斃，並至少逮捕了100多名有逃離國家嫌疑的維族人。
針對新疆維族人，政府的壓制正在持續並愈演愈烈，這都被描繪成反恐怖主義，而這也與中國專對新疆更大的計劃有關。
該區域對中國具有至關重要的戰略意義，它是中國通往西方的主要通道，既是中國貨物運往西方市場的大門，又提供了自然資源保障，如石油、天然氣和來自中亞乃至更西更南部的鈾礦。
本文作者Sean R. Roberts ：專門研究中國在中亞和新疆的國家驅動發展
在這樣的背景下，中國正在新疆籌建大量的發展項目，這些項目帶來了大批漢族移民，將維族社區連根拔起，讓他們離開了世代生存的土地。
中國可能不介意把維族人趕出新疆，但中國還是希望維族人生活在那，**心甘情願地讓自己的故鄉由漢文化主導。**結果，新疆維吾爾自治區的未來似乎註定既不是維吾爾族的，也不自治。
隨着這些項目在維族人祖輩生活的故鄉上開工，我們不禁要問，週一的襲擊是一起精心準備的恐怖襲擊，還是一個掙扎在中國巨大發展機器邊緣的民族倉促組織的絕望吶喊。
不過，由於這可能是維族人首次在新疆之外實施的絕望的行動，而且是在象徵中央權力的地方，我們可能還會目睹中國與維族人對峙的升級。
而隨着對峙的不斷升級，中國一直宣稱、但往往毫無根據的維族恐怖主義威脅很可能會弄假成真。
翻頁看CNN網友評論以及BBC對此事報道
**10.28恐怖案件發生後，路透社不失時機地採訪了疆獨分子熱比婭。**據英國廣播公司（BBC）消息，熱比婭對路透社表示，她擔心這一事件讓中國對新疆的“鐵腕鎮壓合法化”。 “中國的聲明顯然不能被採納為事實，因為沒有獨立的國際調查，”她説。“現在很難説清（真相），中國政府對這一悲劇事件嚴密封鎖消息。”
“如果是維族人乾的，我相信他們是走投無路了，因為維族人在中國的統治之下對遭受的不公正無處申冤。
BBC報道截圖
CNN的文章挑逗了一些美國網友的感情，有人評論稱：
VladBudapest：這根本不是一次襲擊，這是一次自我犧牲，就像發起阿拉伯之春的聖徒們，這一次連漢族人都受不了了。
AndyTranAnh：中國豬活該，誰讓你們侵略別的國家？其他人下地獄吧。
也有網友表現出對CNN的嘲笑：
美國網友iontech評價CNN的文章稱，“嗯，這真是很棒的評論，列舉了很多的‘真實數據’和作者臆想的事實。中國不管發生了什麼都是絕望的行為。但如果有人開着裝滿汽油的吉普車撞白宮玫瑰園或國會山再點火，那麼這就成了恐怖襲擊！”
其他網友紛紛説：
他們殺了無辜的人民，然後你説我們應該同情他們。
我真為你感到悲哀，悲哀啊！
好好幹，中國！如果有一個國家控制穆斯林恐怖分子控制的好，那就是中國。你們就這麼幹吧，不要表現出對他們的憐憫。這些穆斯林恐怖分子就是對無辜人羣的屠殺者。為了保護這些無辜者，你們應該做你們應該做的工作。
在熱烈的嘲諷聲中，有網友為CNN打圓場：
XX：你們都誤解了作者的觀點**。他只是想反駁中國政府把這個事件稱作“精心策劃的，有組織的有預謀的”恐怖襲擊。**任何人研究過恐怖主義都會發現這不是那麼回事兒。這次襲擊是那麼業餘，影響又不大。這絕不是有組織的恐怖活動，更像是獨狼行動。
Dan Yeo：不要過分解讀CNN的文章，他們使用的方法是把觀點亮出來，並詢問讀者“是對還是錯？”這是他們的方式。
翻頁看CNN原報道：
Tiananmen crash: Terrorism or cry of desperation?
By Sean R. Roberts, special to CNN
October 31, 2013
Editor’s note: Sean R. Roberts is an associate professor and director of international development studies at George Washington University. He has done substantial fieldwork in China’s Xinjiang region and is presently writing a book on the Uyghurs of Kazakhstan.
(CNN) -- The events on Beijing’s Tiananmen Square that resulted in the death of five people and the injury of dozens more were tragic, but are they representative of a serious terrorist threat to the Chinese state as is now being suggested by official sources?
According to Chinese security organs, this act of driving a jeep into a crowd of people and setting it on fire was a “carefully planned, organized, and premeditated” terrorist attack carried out by a group of Uyghur Islamic extremists from Xinjiang Province.
Unfortunately, given the lack of transparency historically in the Chinese state’s conviction of Uyghurs on charges of political violence, we may never know whether this characterization of Monday’s events is accurate.
What we do know is that Chinese security organs claim that the attackers in the truck, all of whom died, were a Uyghur man, his wife, and his mother. Additionally, Chinese state sources claim to have arrested an additional five suspects in connection with the alleged plot.
Were these alleged attackers members of a cell belonging to a large transnational Jihadist network like Al-Qaeda? Are they representatives of a well-organized militant movement like Al-Shabaab, which recently led an armed hostage-taking operation at a mall in Kenya?
Looking at the crude instruments allegedly used by these people -- gasoline, knives, iron rods, and an SUV, it is difficult to argue that this was the work of any highly organized and well-armed militant group or terrorist network.
There were no sophisticated explosives used in the attacks, and the alleged attackers did not even possess guns. Furthermore, although Uyghurs are Muslims, there is no evidence that they have ever been involved substantively in a global Muslim militant movement.
So, how do we understand this act of violence if it was indeed carried out by a family of Uyghurs?
The obvious answer is to look at what is happening in the Xinjiang itself where such violent acts have been occurring with increasing frequency ever since the ethnic violence between Uyghurs and Han Chinese that spread throughout the regional capitol of Urumqi during the summer of 2009.
Life for Uyghurs inside Xinjiang is not like that of most people in the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
For the last decade, the Chinese government has created a virtual police state within Xinjiang, employing enhanced surveillance of Uyghur citizens, actively repressing Uyghurs’ political voices, and greatly curtailing Uyghur religious practices.
It has also vastly reduced Uyghurs’ access to education in their own language and has limited Uyghur language publications of original reading materials.
Officially, the Chinese state explains most of these measures as part of its anti-terrorism measures to protect national security.
These measures also regularly include arresting large numbers of Uyghurs on charges of engaging in “illegal religious activity” or of having ties to terrorist organizations.
In fact, during this month alone, security organs in Xinjiang were involved in the fatal shooting of suspected Uyghur militants on several separate occasions and arrested at least one hundred more they suspected of trying to flee the country.
Although the government characterizes its ongoing and expansive confrontation with Uyghurs in Xinjiang as anti-terrorism, it is equally related to the PRC’s larger plans for Xinjiang.
The region is of critical strategic importance to the state as it is China’s primary gateway to the west, both in accessing western markets for Chinese goods and in securing natural resources, such as oil, gas, and uranium from Central Asia and locations further west and south.
In this context, the PRC is presently funding enormous development projects in Xinjiang that are also bringing a large influx of Han Chinese migrants and are uprooting Uyghur communities and displacing them from traditional lands.
The state may not care to rid Xinjiang of Uyghurs, but it would like the Uyghurs living there to willingly yield their perceived homeland to a Han-dominant state culture. As a result, the future of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region appears destined to be neither Uyghur nor autonomous.
With these events unfolding in the region that Uyghurs view as their historical homeland, one feels compelled to question whether Monday’s alleged attack was a well-prepared terrorist act or a hastily assembled cry of desperation from a people on the extreme margins of the Chinese state’s monstrous development machine.
However, given that this is allegedly the first instance that Uyghurs have carried out such desperate acts outside Xinjiang, and in this case in the very symbolic seat of central power, we may also be witnessing a sharp escalation in the Chinese state’s confrontation with the Uyghurs.
In the midst of this escalation, it is also possible that the PRC’s long-maintained, but largely unsubstantiated, claims of a Uyghur terrorist threat are perhaps becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Sean R. Roberts
CNN文章鏈接http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/31/opinion/china-tiananmen-uyghurs/index.html?hpt=hp_c1