Wrong lines
The writer of an article posted on CNN’s website has sympathy only for the Tian’anmen attackers, without considering the suffering they caused.
What makes a building attractive to terrorists? It was because they were symbols of the United States’ military and economic power that the al-Qaida attacked the Pentagon and World Trade Center 12 years ago. And it was for this reason that terrorists crashed a jeep into a crowd of people on Oct 28 near the Tian’anmen Rostrum, killing five, including the three attackers, and injuring another 40. By striking at the rostrum they hoped to attract global attention by hitting at the heart of the Chinese.
In one sense they succeeded － the news, like all terrorist attacks, quickly spread around the whole world, although it was distorted by some Western media.
CNN was one of the most active distorters. In its report on the July 5, 2009 riots in Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region, CNN used fake photos of China’s military drills to prove a non-existent “military crackdown” on Uygur people. This time CNN invited an “expert” to support its distortion of the truth.
On Oct 31, CNN published on its homepage an article by Sean R. Roberts, an associate professor from Washington University. In the article, Roberts tried to deny the attack was an act of terrorism with the specious argument that the perpetrators used a vehicle, gasoline and knives, instead of guns; and did not, according to him, belong to any international militant groups.
Roberts concluded that it was a desperate cry for help because China’s enormous development projects in the Xinjiang were “bringing a large influx of Han Chinese” and “displacing them (Uygur people) from traditional lands”.
But both the news organization and its so-called expert chose to ignore the fact that the vehicle was driven into innocent people in the square deliberately for political reasons. Indeed, Roberts had sympathy only for the attackers, without considering the suffering they caused. Roberts is clearly taking sides, instead of doing serious research on the issue.
As a blog article on the Diplomat, by Alessandro Rippa, pointed out, Roberts and his fellow scholars dismissed the attack itself and “they could have made the same points without the attack even having taken place”.
Roberts said that he does not know whether the incident is terrorist attack given the lack of transparency in China. But enough evidence was found after the attack to prove it was an act of terrorism. After the bombing of the marathon in Boston in April, the US media were almost immediately calling it a “terrorist attack”; no one doubted their characterization.
As Jeremy Greenstock, the United Kingdom’s envoy to the UN once said, “What looks, smells and kills like terrorism — is terrorism.”
Roberts’ other reason for saying it was not a terrorist attack was the perpetrators didn’t belong to an international militant group. Yet, the Tsarnaev brothers, who were responsible for the Boston bombing, had no more than a loose connection with international terrorist groups. Besides, by asserting that the attackers belong to no militant group, Roberts had selectively ignored the fact that five suspects are under arrest with more being hunted.
Roberts’ last point, namely that attackers used gasoline, knives, iron rods and a vehicle in the incident instead of guns, contradicts his claim that the investigation was not transparent and displays his lack of knowledge on Chinese law. Unlike the US, China exercises strict control over guns, including guns used for hunting.
In the Sept 11, 2001 attacks, al-Qaida terrorists used hijacked airplanes as bombs; in the Boston attack, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev used an improvised explosive device; in the Tian’anmen attack they used a vehicle and gas. Is Roberts arguing the al-Qaida men and Tsarnaev brothers couldn’t be terrorists because they did not use guns? And does CNN agree with him?