【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(guó)的事情就露出另一番面目。10·28天安門(mén)恐怖案已造成40多名無(wú)辜游客死傷。全世界善良的大眾，無(wú)論其宗教背景，無(wú)論其對(duì)中國(guó)的態(tài)度，都為死難者哀悼，法國(guó)總統(tǒng)奧朗德表達(dá)了“感同身受”的哀慟。然而此時(shí)，聽(tīng)聽(tīng)那些西方媒體說(shuō)了什么？

在BBC（英國(guó)廣播公司）的報(bào)道中，恐怖分子、嫌疑人等詞上打上引號(hào)，表現(xiàn)出對(duì)嫌疑人身份的不認(rèn)可；CNN（美國(guó)有線電視新聞網(wǎng)）今天頭條發(fā)問(wèn)“是恐怖主義還是絕望的吶喊？”文中寫(xiě)道“看看這些簡(jiǎn)陋的器具，汽油、刀具、鐵棍，吉普車(chē)，怎么看都很難把這些聯(lián)想成高度組織的恐怖行為”，“怎么理解這次襲擊，只要看看09年以來(lái)新疆日益增加的民族矛盾就可明了，新疆的維族人，他們的生活和中華人民共和國(guó)的公民大相徑庭”。

在CNN們的眼里，恐怖分子成了“值得同情的被壓迫者”，而死在他們車(chē)輪下的人們，無(wú)論是菲律賓人、日本人、中國(guó)人，都不值一提。CNN更在意的是中國(guó)內(nèi)部的民族沖突，并加劇這種撕裂。CNN們殷殷盼望的，是一個(gè)彌漫在恐怖里的黑暗中國(guó)，是揚(yáng)灑更多的血，是中華民族的自戕，是中華大地永無(wú)寧日的分裂和混戰(zhàn)。

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(duì)您絲毫不埋怨，因?yàn)樵谀抢铮勖镏袊?guó)的力量太強(qiáng)大，讓任何為中國(guó)辯護(hù)的聲音都被吞沒(méi)抹殺；如果您保持最基本的底線，堅(jiān)持常識(shí)，沒(méi)被這樣的荒謬誤導(dǎo)，我們依然為您將持續(xù)沉浸在如此強(qiáng)大的“指鹿為馬”的媒體環(huán)境中難過(guò)。

我們把CNN們的報(bào)道原樣呈現(xiàn)在下面：

CNN:天安門(mén)沖撞案：恐怖主義還是絕望的吶喊？

作者Sean R. Roberts是喬治華盛頓大學(xué)的助理教授。他對(duì)中國(guó)新疆區(qū)域頗有研究，近期發(fā)表關(guān)于哈薩克斯坦的維吾爾人著作。

北京天安門(mén)廣場(chǎng)發(fā)生的事件造成5人死亡，數(shù)十人受傷，但這是否像官方消息所說(shuō)的那樣，是一起嚴(yán)重的恐怖主義威脅？

中國(guó)安全部門(mén)稱(chēng)，這一駕駛吉普車(chē)沖入人群并縱火的行為是“經(jīng)過(guò)嚴(yán)密策劃，有組織有預(yù)謀的”暴力恐怖襲擊案件，由一伙來(lái)自新疆的維族伊斯蘭極端分子策劃實(shí)施。

不幸的是，鑒于中國(guó)對(duì)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(yuǎn)無(wú)法知道對(duì)周一的事件的定性是否準(zhǔn)確。

我們知道的是中國(guó)安全部門(mén)聲稱(chēng)襲擊者在那輛車(chē)上，全部死亡，包括一名維族男子，他的妻子和母親。另外，中國(guó)官媒的消息稱(chēng)逮捕了另外5名涉案嫌犯。

這些襲擊者來(lái)自于像基地組織這樣的跨國(guó)圣戰(zhàn)網(wǎng)絡(luò)的一個(gè)分支嗎？他們是像伊斯蘭青年軍這樣有組織的武裝運(yùn)動(dòng)的代表嗎？后者剛剛襲擊了肯尼亞的一個(gè)商場(chǎng)。

看看這些據(jù)稱(chēng)是襲擊者使用的原始工具吧——汽油、刀子、鐵棍和一輛吉普車(chē)，很難說(shuō)這是任何一個(gè)高度有組織、裝備良好的叛軍或恐怖分子團(tuán)伙所為。

襲擊沒(méi)有使用復(fù)雜的爆炸物，嫌犯甚至連槍都沒(méi)有。而且，盡管維族人是穆斯林，沒(méi)有任何證據(jù)表明他們實(shí)際上參與了全球性的穆斯林激進(jìn)運(yùn)動(dòng)。

所以，假如這起暴力事件僅僅是一戶維族家庭實(shí)施的，那么我們?cè)趺蠢斫膺@個(gè)行為？

很明顯，只要看看新疆日益增加的漢維民族矛盾，你就可以明了為什么發(fā)生今天的事情，自09年夏天新疆首府烏魯木齊發(fā)生的民族暴力事件以來(lái)，民族爭(zhēng)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(guó)的公民大相徑庭。

CNN頭條發(fā)文：恐怖主義還是絕望的吶喊？

在過(guò)去10年，中國(guó)政府把新疆變成得警察遍布，他們加強(qiáng)對(duì)維吾爾族居民的監(jiān)控，并嚴(yán)重壓縮了維族宗教活動(dòng)。

同時(shí)中國(guó)政府大規(guī)模削減維族人接受他們本民族語(yǔ)言教育的權(quán)利，同時(shí)限制了維族語(yǔ)言的出版物數(shù)量。

中國(guó)官方將這些手段都解釋成它反恐的一部分，稱(chēng)此舉動(dòng)將保障國(guó)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(dòng)”或者“和恐怖組織有關(guān)聯(lián)”。

而實(shí)際上，單單就這個(gè)月而言，新疆的安全部門(mén)在不同場(chǎng)合將一些維吾爾族好戰(zhàn)分子擊斃，并至少逮捕了100多名有逃離國(guó)家嫌疑的維族人。

針對(duì)新疆維族人，政府的壓制正在持續(xù)并愈演愈烈，這都被描繪成反恐怖主義，而這也與中國(guó)專(zhuān)對(duì)新疆更大的計(jì)劃有關(guān)。

該區(qū)域?qū)χ袊?guó)具有至關(guān)重要的戰(zhàn)略意義，它是中國(guó)通往西方的主要通道，既是中國(guó)貨物運(yùn)往西方市場(chǎng)的大門(mén)，又提供了自然資源保障，如石油、天然氣和來(lái)自中亞乃至更西更南部的鈾礦。

本文作者Sean R. Roberts ：專(zhuān)門(mén)研究中國(guó)在中亞和新疆的國(guó)家驅(qū)動(dòng)發(fā)展

在這樣的背景下，中國(guó)正在新疆籌建大量的發(fā)展項(xiàng)目，這些項(xiàng)目帶來(lái)了大批漢族移民，將維族社區(qū)連根拔起，讓他們離開(kāi)了世代生存的土地。

中國(guó)可能不介意把維族人趕出新疆，但中國(guó)還是希望維族人生活在那，心甘情愿地讓自己的故鄉(xiāng)由漢文化主導(dǎo)。結(jié)果，新疆維吾爾自治區(qū)的未來(lái)似乎注定既不是維吾爾族的，也不自治。

隨著這些項(xiàng)目在維族人祖輩生活的故鄉(xiāng)上開(kāi)工，我們不禁要問(wèn)，周一的襲擊是一起精心準(zhǔn)備的恐怖襲擊，還是一個(gè)掙扎在中國(guó)巨大發(fā)展機(jī)器邊緣的民族倉(cāng)促組織的絕望吶喊。

不過(guò)，由于這可能是維族人首次在新疆之外實(shí)施的絕望的行動(dòng)，而且是在象征中央權(quán)力的地方，我們可能還會(huì)目睹中國(guó)與維族人對(duì)峙的升級(jí)。

而隨著對(duì)峙的不斷升級(jí)，中國(guó)一直宣稱(chēng)、但往往毫無(wú)根據(jù)的維族恐怖主義威脅很可能會(huì)弄假成真。

翻頁(yè)看CNN網(wǎng)友評(píng)論以及BBC對(duì)此事報(bào)道

10.28恐怖案件發(fā)生后，路透社不失時(shí)機(jī)地采訪了疆獨(dú)分子熱比婭。據(jù)英國(guó)廣播公司（BBC）消息，熱比婭對(duì)路透社表示，她擔(dān)心這一事件讓中國(guó)對(duì)新疆的“鐵腕鎮(zhèn)壓合法化”。

“中國(guó)的聲明顯然不能被采納為事實(shí)，因?yàn)闆](méi)有獨(dú)立的國(guó)際調(diào)查，”她說(shuō)。“現(xiàn)在很難說(shuō)清（真相），中國(guó)政府對(duì)這一悲劇事件嚴(yán)密封鎖消息。”

“如果是維族人干的，我相信他們是走投無(wú)路了，因?yàn)榫S族人在中國(guó)的統(tǒng)治之下對(duì)遭受的不公正無(wú)處申冤。

BBC報(bào)道截圖

CNN的文章挑逗了一些美國(guó)網(wǎng)友的感情，有人評(píng)論稱(chēng)：

VladBudapest：這根本不是一次襲擊，這是一次自我犧牲，就像發(fā)起阿拉伯之春的圣徒們，這一次連漢族人都受不了了。

AndyTranAnh：中國(guó)豬活該，誰(shuí)讓你們侵略別的國(guó)家？其他人下地獄吧。

也有網(wǎng)友表現(xiàn)出對(duì)CNN的嘲笑：

美國(guó)網(wǎng)友iontech評(píng)價(jià)CNN的文章稱(chēng)，“嗯，這真是很棒的評(píng)論，列舉了很多的‘真實(shí)數(shù)據(jù)’和作者臆想的事實(shí)。中國(guó)不管發(fā)生了什么都是絕望的行為。但如果有人開(kāi)著裝滿汽油的吉普車(chē)撞白宮玫瑰園或國(guó)會(huì)山再點(diǎn)火，那么這就成了恐怖襲擊！”

其他網(wǎng)友紛紛說(shuō)：

他們殺了無(wú)辜的人民，然后你說(shuō)我們應(yīng)該同情他們。

我真為你感到悲哀，悲哀??！

好好干，中國(guó)！如果有一個(gè)國(guó)家控制穆斯林恐怖分子控制的好，那就是中國(guó)。你們就這么干吧，不要表現(xiàn)出對(duì)他們的憐憫。這些穆斯林恐怖分子就是對(duì)無(wú)辜人群的屠殺者。為了保護(hù)這些無(wú)辜者，你們應(yīng)該做你們應(yīng)該做的工作。

在熱烈的嘲諷聲中，有網(wǎng)友為CNN打圓場(chǎng)：

XX：你們都誤解了作者的觀點(diǎn)。他只是想反駁中國(guó)政府把這個(gè)事件稱(chēng)作“精心策劃的，有組織的有預(yù)謀的”恐怖襲擊。任何人研究過(guò)恐怖主義都會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)這不是那么回事兒。這次襲擊是那么業(yè)余，影響又不大。這絕不是有組織的恐怖活動(dòng)，更像是獨(dú)狼行動(dòng)。

Dan Yeo：不要過(guò)分解讀CNN的文章，他們使用的方法是把觀點(diǎn)亮出來(lái)，并詢問(wèn)讀者“是對(duì)還是錯(cuò)？”這是他們的方式。

翻頁(yè)看CNN原報(bào)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