CNN头条报道北京天安门10.28恐怖事件 同情实施犯罪新疆恐怖分子

【编者按】：**一向自诩为“客观公正”、“传播普世正义”的西方媒体，遇到中国的事情就露出另一番面目。**10·28天安门恐怖案已造成40多名无辜游客死伤。全世界善良的大众，无论其宗教背景，无论其对中国的态度，都为死难者哀悼，法国总统奥朗德表达了“感同身受”的哀恸。然而此时，听听那些西方媒体说了什么？

在BBC（英国广播公司）的报道中，恐怖分子、嫌疑人等词上打上引号，表现出对嫌疑人身份的不认可**；CNN（美国有线电视新闻网****）今天头条发问“是恐怖主义还是绝望的呐喊？”**文中写道“看看这些简陋的器具，汽油、刀具、铁棍，吉普车，怎么看都很难把这些联想成高度组织的恐怖行为”，“怎么理解这次袭击，只要看看09年以来新疆日益增加的民族矛盾就可明了，新疆的维族人，他们的生活和中华人民共和国的公民大相径庭”。

在CNN们的眼里，恐怖分子成了“值得同情的被压迫者”，而死在他们车轮下的人们，无论是菲律宾人、日本人、中国人，都不值一提。CNN更在意的是中国内部的民族冲突，并加剧这种撕裂。CNN们殷殷盼望的，是一个弥漫在恐怖里的黑暗中国，是扬洒更多的血，是中华民族的自戕，是中华大地永无宁日的分裂和混战。

被CNN们覆盖的读者，如果您生活在这样“讲求客观”的媒体合力操控下，变成了恐怖分子的同情者，我们对您丝毫不埋怨，因为在那里，污蔑中国的力量太强大，让任何为中国辩护的声音都被吞没抹杀；如果您保持最基本的底线，坚持常识，没被这样的荒谬误导，我们依然为您将持续沉浸在如此强大的“指鹿为马”的媒体环境中难过。

我们把CNN们的报道原样呈现在下面：

CNN:天安门冲撞案：恐怖主义还是绝望的呐喊？

作者Sean R. Roberts是乔治华盛顿大学的助理教授。他对中国新疆区域颇有研究，近期发表关于哈萨克斯坦的维吾尔人著作。

北京天安门广场发生的事件造成5人死亡，数十人受伤，但这是否像官方消息所说的那样，是一起严重的恐怖主义威胁？

中国安全部门称，这一驾驶吉普车冲入人群并纵火的行为是“经过严密策划，有组织有预谋的”暴力恐怖袭击案件，由一伙来自新疆的维族伊斯兰极端分子策划实施。

不幸的是，鉴于中国对维吾尔人政治暴力的定罪上一向缺乏透明度，我们可能永远无法知道对周一的事件的定性是否准确。

我们知道的是中国安全部门声称袭击者在那辆车上，全部死亡，包括一名维族男子，他的妻子和母亲。另外，中国官媒的消息称逮捕了另外5名涉案嫌犯。

这些袭击者来自于像基地组织这样的跨国圣战网络的一个分支吗？他们是像伊斯兰青年军这样有组织的武装运动的代表吗？后者刚刚袭击了肯尼亚的一个商场。

看看这些据称是袭击者使用的原始工具吧——汽油、刀子、铁棍和一辆吉普车，很难说这是任何一个高度有组织、装备良好的叛军或恐怖分子团伙所为。

袭击没有使用复杂的爆炸物，嫌犯甚至连枪都没有。而且，尽管维族人是穆斯林，没有任何证据表明他们实际上参与了全球性的穆斯林激进运动。

所以，假如这起暴力事件仅仅是一户维族家庭实施的，那么我们怎么理解这个行为？

很明显，只要看看新疆日益增加的汉维民族矛盾，你就可以明了为什么发生今天的事情，自09年夏天新疆首府乌鲁木齐发生的民族暴力事件以来，民族争端愈演愈烈。

在新疆的维族人，他们的生活和中华人民共和国的公民大相径庭。

CNN头条发文：恐怖主义还是绝望的呐喊？

在过去10年，中国政府把新疆变成得警察遍布，他们加强对维吾尔族居民的监控，并严重压缩了维族宗教活动。

同时中国政府大规模削减维族人接受他们本民族语言教育的权利，同时限制了维族语言的出版物数量。

中国官方将这些手段都解释成它反恐的一部分，称此举动将保障国家安全。

这些方法通常也包括抓捕大量的维族人，罪名是“非法从事宗教活动”或者“和恐怖组织有关联”。

而实际上，单单就这个月而言，新疆的安全部门在不同场合将一些维吾尔族好战分子击毙，并至少逮捕了100多名有逃离国家嫌疑的维族人。

针对新疆维族人，政府的压制正在持续并愈演愈烈，这都被描绘成反恐怖主义，而这也与中国专对新疆更大的计划有关。

该区域对中国具有至关重要的战略意义，它是中国通往西方的主要通道，既是中国货物运往西方市场的大门，又提供了自然资源保障，如石油、天然气和来自中亚乃至更西更南部的铀矿。

本文作者Sean R. Roberts ：专门研究中国在中亚和新疆的国家驱动发展

在这样的背景下，中国正在新疆筹建大量的发展项目，这些项目带来了大批汉族移民，将维族社区连根拔起，让他们离开了世代生存的土地。

中国可能不介意把维族人赶出新疆，但中国还是希望维族人生活在那，**心甘情愿地让自己的故乡由汉文化主导。**结果，新疆维吾尔自治区的未来似乎注定既不是维吾尔族的，也不自治。

随着这些项目在维族人祖辈生活的故乡上开工，我们不禁要问，周一的袭击是一起精心准备的恐怖袭击，还是一个挣扎在中国巨大发展机器边缘的民族仓促组织的绝望呐喊。

不过，由于这可能是维族人首次在新疆之外实施的绝望的行动，而且是在象征中央权力的地方，我们可能还会目睹中国与维族人对峙的升级。

而随着对峙的不断升级，中国一直宣称、但往往毫无根据的维族恐怖主义威胁很可能会弄假成真。

翻页看CNN网友评论以及BBC对此事报道

**10.28恐怖案件发生后，路透社不失时机地采访了疆独分子热比娅。**据英国广播公司（BBC）消息，热比娅对路透社表示，她担心这一事件让中国对新疆的“铁腕镇压合法化”。

“中国的声明显然不能被采纳为事实，因为没有独立的国际调查，”她说。“现在很难说清（真相），中国政府对这一悲剧事件严密封锁消息。”

“如果是维族人干的，我相信他们是走投无路了，因为维族人在中国的统治之下对遭受的不公正无处申冤。

BBC报道截图

CNN的文章挑逗了一些美国网友的感情，有人评论称：

VladBudapest：这根本不是一次袭击，这是一次自我牺牲，就像发起阿拉伯之春的圣徒们，这一次连汉族人都受不了了。

AndyTranAnh：中国猪活该，谁让你们侵略别的国家？其他人下地狱吧。

也有网友表现出对CNN的嘲笑：

美国网友iontech评价CNN的文章称，“嗯，这真是很棒的评论，列举了很多的‘真实数据’和作者臆想的事实。中国不管发生了什么都是绝望的行为。但如果有人开着装满汽油的吉普车撞白宫玫瑰园或国会山再点火，那么这就成了恐怖袭击！”

其他网友纷纷说：

他们杀了无辜的人民，然后你说我们应该同情他们。

我真为你感到悲哀，悲哀啊！

好好干，中国！如果有一个国家控制穆斯林恐怖分子控制的好，那就是中国。你们就这么干吧，不要表现出对他们的怜悯。这些穆斯林恐怖分子就是对无辜人群的屠杀者。为了保护这些无辜者，你们应该做你们应该做的工作。

在热烈的嘲讽声中，有网友为CNN打圆场：

XX：你们都误解了作者的观点**。他只是想反驳中国政府把这个事件称作“精心策划的，有组织的有预谋的”恐怖袭击。**任何人研究过恐怖主义都会发现这不是那么回事儿。这次袭击是那么业余，影响又不大。这绝不是有组织的恐怖活动，更像是独狼行动。

Dan Yeo：不要过分解读CNN的文章，他们使用的方法是把观点亮出来，并询问读者“是对还是错？”这是他们的方式。

翻页看CNN原报道：

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文章链接http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/31/opinion/china-tiananmen-uyghurs/index.html?hpt=hp_c1