I was shocked by the double standard reflected in your
comments about the “knife attack” in Kunming, China. 33 innocent Chinese were
killed, 143 injured. If the same brutal attack happened in a western country,
you will report the families’ miseries, you will praise the policemen’s bravery,
and you will condemn terrorists’ cruelty. But because it happened in China, victims
and their families were indifferently ignored. Your talk focused on the
motivation of the attackers and whether they should be defined as “terrorists”.
You argued that by using the term of “terrorist” the attack will not be
regarded as motivated by political reason but by religious extremism. You even
suggested to audience that the attack is a continuance of ethnic clashes in Xinjiang,
where both side kill each other.
comments about the “knife attack” in Kunming, China. 33 innocent Chinese were
killed, 143 injured. If the same brutal attack happened in a western country,
you will report the families’ miseries, you will praise the policemen’s bravery,
and you will condemn terrorists’ cruelty. But because it happened in China, victims
and their families were indifferently ignored. Your talk focused on the
motivation of the attackers and whether they should be defined as “terrorists”.
You argued that by using the term of “terrorist” the attack will not be
regarded as motivated by political reason but by religious extremism. You even
suggested to audience that the attack is a continuance of ethnic clashes in Xinjiang,
where both side kill each other.
If a same attack happened in Canada or the US or Britain,
will you dare to make such comments?
You are reluctant to define the Kunming attack as “terrorism”.
But attacking civilian targets to intimidate the society is terrorist. Does it
make difference if it happened in New York, London or Kunming? You want to dig up the motivations, but almost all
terrorists view themselves as victimized by some historical wrong. Do you have
to find out whether 911 attack was caused by the US Middle East policies or a religious
reason before you condemn 911 terrorist attack? You want to relate the Kunming murder
to China’s political system, by doing that you totally ignored the 33 victims
and their families. Does an innocent victim’s life has different value if
he/she lives in a country of republic, monarchy or socialist? Why when Bush
told the world “you are either with us or against us”, we didn’t hear CBC talk
about whether 911 should be defined as terrorist attack. What we heard was “today we are all
American”.
Where does the double standard come from?
You suggested that the Kunming attack is a continuance of ethnic
clashes in Xinjiang and Uighurs there are not treated equally. If you visit
Chinese websites, you will find majority Han Chinese do not agree with you.
They complained that the government gives Uighur too much special privileges. For
example, One family one child policy applies to Han but not Uighur. Uighur can
give birth as many as they like. Uighur children can get into college at lower
scores. Even Uighur criminals get a lighter sentence while having committed a
same crime. Ethnic issues are always complex. Have you undertaken an objective
research and collected evidences before you assert Uighurs was oppressed by
Han? The black-clad assailants’ killing skills and cruelty make one’s hair
stand on end. What makes you believe they are not muslim extremists but victims
under Chinese regime? When a muslim extremist was brought to justice in a
western country it was “justice has been done”, why in China it become both
side killing each other?
Terrorism is a common enemy of human conscience, regardless
of its cause, because it attacks innocent civilians. I hope CBC does not lose
its conscience.
of its cause, because it attacks innocent civilians. I hope CBC does not lose
its conscience.
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”
