MCLC: "terrorism" in Kunming (6,7)

[Denton, Kirk]

MCLC LIST
From: sean macdonald <smacdon2005 at gmail.com>
Subject: "terrorism" in Kunming (6)
***********************************************************

I have really not disagreed with anything I have read on this thread.
Mainstream media and politicians are often either either too fast or too
slow to define terrorism as such. Pointing fingers is inevitable but a
little bit pointless. Personally I do not give a damn about a rationale
for mass murder. Anyone who has been around a train station in China at
that hour would know the citizens who were killed probably included local
individuals, travelers, migrant workers, food sellers. Families including
children. What does it take to plan such an attack? What if someone I knew
had been there, a family member? I don't even want to think about it.

The response by some Chinese commentators resembles the responses by some
of the American public after 9-11 which was something like: "Why don't
they unambiguously condemn this acts, these acts, for what they are?"

When I was a child, revolutionaries in the province of Quebec carried out
a series of acts of terrorism lasting for almost a decade that included
bombs and kidnappings. In the end the Canadian government passed a War
Measures Act and the Army was called in to occupy the city of Montreal. I
can still remember the fear I felt towards the terrorists and the Army. I
will never forget the sight of armed soldiers lining the streets.

In the late 1960s the French sociologist Henri Lefebvre developed a theory
of terrorist society: “Any society involving, on the one hand, poverty and
want and on the other a privileged class (possessing and administrating,
exploiting, organizing and obtaining for its own ends as much social
overtime as possible, either for ostentatious consumption or for
accumulation, or indeed for both purposes at once) is maintained by the
dual method of (ideological) persuasion and compulsion (punishment, laws
and codes, courts, violence kept in store to prevent violence, overt
violence, armed forces, police, etc.)” (Everday Life in the Modern World).

But Lefebvre was a Marxist, and that was the 1960s.

Sean

==========================================================

From: pjmooney <pjmooney at me.com>
Subject: "terrorism" in Kunming (7)

In response to Jason McGrath's post (#5):

I’m sure we’ve created a lot of Muslim enemies around the world as a
result of our military actions and political stance, but is this a good
comparison? Can we compare the situation of Muslims in China and Muslims
in the United States?

Does the US government seriously interfere in the religious practices of
Muslims in the US? Do we have police blocking certain Muslims from
entering mosques? Do we have security cameras screwed into the walls of
mosques to record who comes and goes? Do we shut down Muslim schools or
insist on appointing Imams? Do we forbid Muslims from going on the Haj? Do
we force Muslims to eat during Ramadan? Do we forbid them from wearing
Muslim attire? All of this happens in Xinjiang. Was the incident in Boston
a reaction to the oppression of Muslims in the U.S.? We’re talking about
two completely different situations here.

Isn’t Wang Lixiong a Chinese citizen? Should he not have an opportunity to
express his opinions? It wasn’t the NYT who made that comment, but Wang,
so why blame the NYT? And didn’t Wang call it terrorism? Is what Wang
Lixiong said false? The statement is right on the mark, based on my
understanding of China and its policies in Xinjiang. This doesn’t mean
that I support what happened. I condemn terrorism. It could hurt anyone of
us. But is it wrong to say why Uyghurs may have been forced to adopt such
measures? That there’s a history here? In her most recent book, Woeser
makes the same point. That with no voice and no justice, Tibetans have
been forced to resort to radical methods—self immolation. And she quotes
Mao, saying, where there’s oppression, there’s resistance.

If the Boston bombers had a similar reason to do what they did, I’d
welcome the media examining it. But doesn’t seem like the men who did that
did it because of US government abuses of Muslims and interference in
their religious practices in the US.

Why do you refer to the Western media when you say it turns every story
about China into a narrative of government oppression? Is this even a fair
statement? Do you have reason to believe Western reporting is different
from reporting by the media from other countries? If you read widely,
you’ll find that the media in Taiwan, Hongkong, Malaysia, Latin America,
South Korea, Japan, etc. write the same types of stories that the Western
media does. If you look at the more open Chinese media, you’ll see that
Chinese journalists write the same stories, when the government is not
blocking them from doing so.

But I’d like to know what you really find odd about the international
coverage of the event. Can you provide some examples?

This was certainly a tragic event, and no one has said it wasn’t. But
regarding the use of the term terrorism, do you have inside knowledge
about what happened? Are you sure this was organized? What’s your basis
for saying this?

The real problem here is that the Chinese government has a long history of
exaggerating acts of terrorism and labeling anything related to Uyghurs as
terrorist, in most case providing no evidence. More than a few observers
see it as an excuse to justify its draconian policies in Xinjiang.

Unfortunately, to be very frank, when the boy cries wolf so many times,
people are reluctant to automatically believe it. If Beijing had a better
record of telling the truth regarding such instances, people would be more
willing to believe it. However, it blames the Dalai Lama for close to 130
people setting fire to themselves, and even claims he’s personally
authored a book on how to do this. It blames Rebiya Kadeer for things that
happen, but has never provided any evidence to connect her with anything?
I was at a MOFA press conference in 2009 when a senior official said the
Dalai Lama was directly responsible for the trouble in 2008, and that
Rebiya Kadeer was responsible for the disturbance in 2009. I asked him if
he had concrete evidence. I’d ask the US government in the same situation.
He smiled and said, “Yes, and we’ll provide that evidence soon.” Five
years later, but still no evidence.

Why is it when a Han Chinese person sets off a bomb, the Chinese media
doesn’t call it terrorism? Why is it that when this happens, you don’t
complain about the Chinese or foreign media not calling it terrorism? The
statement by the State Council two days ago referred to the incident as a
knife attack—did not use the term terrorism. Does that bother you? The
State Council Information Office has ordered the state media to only use
Xinhua reporting of the event, and prohibited any independent coverage.
But no one seems bothered by this—only by what the so-called Western media
does.

And why is it so important to use the word terrorism. Does that change
what happened? It’s a terrible and tragic event and that’s how it’s been
reported. No one has sought to play it down or make it look less than what
it is. And calling it terrorism or violence doesn’t really make a big
difference to me.

Paul