Xinjiang Province: News & Discussions

[jhungary]

The problem with mainstream Western corporate media is that they are very much aligned with the geopolitical interests of the state. Now, this can be expected from VOA, which is supposed to be the voice of its owner.

But, when the US mainstream news media is so powerful and able to set or change the discourse and when they parrot the state line based on geopolitical interests, then you will have loads of suspects and attackers in acts of terror in China's Xinjiang while they are very quick to portray attacks on Western interests as act of terrorism by default.

I say "by default" because they do not have to get access to "miraculously" open Western governments to fathom out that the incident is an act of terrorism or not. From second one, day one, they paint a picture and set the discourse.

The question here is not whether the Western media attend to every criminal incident that happen in China. The question is about how the Western media sets the discourse with respect to mass events that they perceive as having geopolitical value for the state they represent.

Otherwise, I do not care how many NYC police officers are stabbed every day and it is very normal if they do not care what petty crime happened in China.

Like what happened in Oklahoma bombing incident, they first set the political tone and as the hard data came out, they unwillingly stated it, but the "Arab terrorist" discourse was already set in. This is in fact how they managed to manipulate average person's view to recruit enough support for their glorious war on terror in the 2000s.

I do not complain why the Western media is as it is. What is important is to know their tactics and strategy and thereby examine ourselves to fix the shortcomings.

This is not to become just like them when we gather enough power, but to have the required consciousness toward and thus immunity to the Western media's discourse terrorism.

Knowing is empowerment.

lol, a bunch of cork and bull.

First of all, if US media align and towing the state line, then we won't see so many reality show in US media today, people watch American Idol or NCIS a lot more than 20/20 or dateline any day.

What you are saying is a bunch of BULL, coming from a person who think he knows how US media works and in fact know nothing like it, in fact, I would have bet on you never actually watch any Western TV shows, political or drama.

US media serve the US Audience, it report based on what US audience want. Not what geopolitical direction the government have, simply because the government did not control the media and they were not the one paying money to TV station and keep them afloat, that's from selling advertisement slot to commercial backer. Which basically about rating.

Media have a minimal responsibility on reporting political news compare to most "entertainment news" which basically mean the Political News are not getting enough air time on any news program or newspaper and for one reason only, they don't sell. And for that, they will need to sell the news that can be sold to the public.

If only the US media is like what you just said, which being the mouth piece of the government, a lot of thing could have done easily by the government. Vietnam war would be a different ball game. But apparently everyone know, except you, that Media are always at odd with the government, simply being a yes man don't sell.

And what about you? Do you care about what happen to China? The killing in Kunming, the Mine, etc?

I know about stuff, not from official channel. As for the question do I care about them, in a way, I care about it, because it was about Islamic extremist terrorist, but my answer would be I won't until I need to go to China, in a way.

 

[qwerrty]

US media serve the US Audience, it report based on what US audience want. Not what geopolitical direction the government have, simply because the government did not control the media and they were not the one paying money to TV station and keep them afloat, that's from selling advertisement slot to commercial backer. Which basically about rating.

WMD in iraq... cough* cough** everyone have seen how they play. who are you trying to fool?

 

[Dungeness]

US media serve the US Audience, it report based on what US audience want. Not what geopolitical direction the government have, simply because the government did not control the media and they were not the one paying money to TV station and keep them afloat, that's from selling advertisement slot to commercial backer. Which basically about rating.

Hard to believe being a military professional, you would say something like this!

 

[jhungary]

Hard to believe being a military professional, you would say something like this!

why?

We all know this long before I joined the Military.

Who said Military have to work hand in hand with the media or vice versa? If we (US military ) were in charge of public media, we would have report more soldier death than Kim Kardashian latest move or who bang Ne-Yo this weekends.

We see US media is what holding us back from doing what we do, every decision we make have to look good to people back home, in the end, we did nothing, because you can't possibly look good killing people in front of the TV.

 

[Huaren]

Hard to believe being a military professional, you would say something like this!

Military professional can biased as well, just like anybody else.

 

[jhungary]

WMD in iraq... cough* cough** everyone have seen how they play. who are you trying to fool?

Iraq does have WMD, they have Chemical Weapon stockpile in 2008.

I know what you think, yeah, they are "expired" well, maybe you want to try getting into a room full of these "expired: nerve gas without gas mask?? If you did that, then come back to me to talk about how "Expire" it was

 

[TaiShang]

WMD in iraq... cough* cough** everyone have seen how they play. who are you trying to fool?

When it comes to the ultimate interests of the state/regime, US media and governments are aligned. Hence you will have NYT selling the war on Iraq to the public single-handedly.

Similar approach can be seen now with respect to Syria. Normally, any armed groups that try to overthrow an internationally recognized nation would be labelled as "terrorists," regardless that government is politically oppressive.

If these militia is imported from other countries, then it would considered an act of war and required legitimate self-defence.

But the US regime and its media have continuously painted the Syrian armed groups (domestic and foreign) as if they held some legitimacy. Hillary Clinton even tried twice to pass a resolution to punish Syria for its legitimate self-defence.

Now I would not wish anything like what happens in Syria to any other nation, including the US, but just keep in mind how many countries US invaded and how many people (civilians included) it killed because some mostly Saudi young men hijacked some planes and killed a few thousands people.

How many countries would Syria seek to attack legitimately (if it had the required national power) on the basis of state and non-state backed terrorism committed against itself?

But you have the US information apparatus working in tandem and setting up a discourse because they have the strategic reach and repetitive power.

The way they approach Xinjiang is, in essence, not different from the way they approach other crises.

It is natural they would act in that way. What is significant is to set up our own discourse. Like Russia does.

Whoever controls the discourse, controls the events.

@Economic superpower

 

[Economic superpower]

When it comes to the ultimate interests of the state/regime, US media and governments are aligned. Hence you will have NYT selling the war on Iraq to the public single-handedly.

Similar approach can be seen now with respect to Syria. Normally, any armed groups that try to overthrow an internationally recognized nation would be labelled as "terrorists."

If these militia is imported from other countries, then it would considered an act of war and required legitimate self-defence.

But the US regime and its media have continuously painted the Syrian armed groups (domestic and foreign) as if they held some legitimacy. Hillary Clinton even tried twice to pass a resolution to punish Syria for its self-defence.

Now I would not wish anything like what happens in Syria to any other nation, including the US, but just keep in mind how many countries US invaded and how many people (civilians included) it killed because some mostly Saudi young men hijacked some planes and killed few thousands people.

How many countries would Syria seek to attack legitimately (if it had the required national power) on the basis of state and non-state backed terrorism committed against itself?

But you have the US information apparatus working in tandem and setting up a discourse because they have the strategic reach and repetitive power.

The way they approach Xinjiang is, in essence, not different from the way they approach other crises.

It is natural they would act in that way. What is significant is to set up our own discourse. Like Russia does.

Whoever controls the discourse, controls the events.

@Economic superpower

Man if I could I would give you a positive rating for this post.

You are so correct.

 

[Jlaw]

Read the comments section, the readers' reaction may just surprise you.

Chinese police shoot dead 28 from 'terrorist group' - Yahoo News

The only news about China in Yahoo that are more positive than negative comments is when China shoots the terrorists. Common people in the west are tired of their government inviting the "trojan horse" into their country thus they rant against the stupid policies of their own government

 

[Zsari]

Are you blinded? Or have some kind of comprehension problem?

WASHINGTON POST

Terrorist attack on market in China’s restive Xinjiang region kills more than 30
Terrorist attack on market in China’s restive Xinjiang region kills more than 30 - The Washington Post

It already said Terrorist attack on the title, what more do you want?

BBC

Urumqi attack kills 31 in China's Xinjiang region
Urumqi attack kills 31 in China's Xinjiang region - BBC News


Again, it said on the article itself it WAS a terrorist attack.

CNN

Terrorist attack kills dozens in China's tense Xinjiang region
Terrorist attack kills dozens in China's tense Xinjiang region - CNN.com

Again, they already said it was a terrorist attack in the title, what more do you want?

Associated Press
31 killed, 90-plus injured in Xinjiang attack
31 killed, 90-plus injured in Xinjiang attack - Yahoo News#



Basically the same piece of news on BBC, again, the article mentioned it was a Terrorist attack.

And also, calling them activist does not mean they are not terrorist, in the US, Domestic Terrorist Group are seldom called terrorist to begin with. They are

White Supremacist
Anarchist
Nationalist
Militant and also
Activists

British Islamist activists detained in Hungary to be deported to UK | World news | The Guardian


Just because they don't use the word "terrorist" that does not mean they are not terrorist. So, if an American News Network calling an IRA operative an Ireland Nationalist (Which by the way, is their official title) instead of terrorist on a bombing in Belfast, UK, then did the US "justified" the bombing?? Your logic is funny.

The word terrorist have a very board meaning, in fact, activists is called exclusively for eco and political/religious terrorist because both were activists in title..

I guess some people just reads the title. I'm not talking about the use of the term "terrorist" or "activist", but rather reciting the statement from terrorist group justifying their action under the guise of "Uyghur activists". Per your example, a comparable report would contain statement from "Irish activist" (Sinn Fein) criticizing UK policy as the cause of these attack.

 

[third eye]

Chinese forces 'used flamethrowers' in Xinjiang operation - BBC News

Chinese authorities say they are battling "foreign terrorists" in Xinjiang

A Chinese military newspaper has given details of a raid in Xinjiang province against suspected militants.

The People's Liberation Army Daily said that, at one point, flamethrowers were used to flush out militants hiding in a cave, who were then shot.

It said they were behind a "brutal" attack on the public, which may refer to an attack on a mine in September in which officials said 16 people died.

Xinjiang, often hit by unrest, is home to a Uighur ethnic minority.

The PLA Daily said special forces tracked the militants to their mountain hideout "like eagles discovering their prey".

Police tried to drive the suspects out with tear gas and stun grenades, before an officer ordered the use of flamethrowers, the article said.

China strictly controls media access to Xinjiang so reports are difficult to verify.

It is thought the latest report may refer to militants linked to the incident at the Sogan colliery in Asku on 18 September.

The US government-funded Radio Free Asia (RFA) was the first to report the attack and said at least 50 people were killed.

Earlier this month, RFA said 17 suspects from three families, including women and children, had been killed in the police operation in response to the mine attack.

China says "foreign terrorists" are behind the violence in the region. Hundreds of people have died in attacks over the past three years.

Ethnic Uighurs, who are mostly Muslim, say Beijing's repression of their religious and cultural customs is provoking the violence.

Uighurs and Xinjiang

• Uighurs are ethnically Turkic Muslims
• They make up about 45% of the region's population; 40% are Han Chinese
• China re-established control in 1949 after crushing short-lived state of East Turkestan
• Since then, there has been large-scale immigration of Han Chinese
• Uighurs fear erosion of traditional culture

Who are the Uighurs?

 

[jhungary]

I guess some people just reads the title. I'm not talking about the use of the term "terrorist" or "activist", but rather reciting the statement from terrorist group justifying their action under the guise of "Uyghur activists". Per your example, a comparable report would contain statement from "Irish activist" (Sinn Fein) criticizing UK policy as the cause of these attack.

I think you misunderstand the stance of the media, as I said Media should and at most time, present a neutral and balanced view, Viewer, like you and me, can be and most of the time, indeed Biased, but the news report should report as it is. The part of the story is what they were behind the attack. And the problem, as you see is that Since those people instigated the attack, they should be censored or editorialized and portray them as terrorist. But then if the news media, or any news media do that, then it would not be a preserved and balanced view

Indeed, this is how CNN covered IRA bombing by Sinn Fein Leader Gerry Adams bombing on London, as it is. CNN quote Gerry saying he blame the UK government (Particular John Major) for not bringing talks back to the table before IRA totally disarmed first, which IRA refused but he denied he have advance knowledge of the attack.

CNN - IRA claims responsibility for London bombing - Feb. 10, 1996

SO, by quoting the reason directly what it is, did CNN "justified" the attack on London?

And finally, it's all about word and the use of it. You are pissed at the Western Media for not portraying those Xinjiang separatist as terrorist. I can tell you this, they would never be a "terrorist" or "terrorist group" in western media, not because of they are biased, but simply because the word "Terrorist" or "terrorist Group" are specifically defined in US to use for groups that attack on US interest, foreign and domestic to alter the US Governmental Policy. You will not see any of Western Media calling any domestic group as "terrorist group" unless they cross path with US interest. Xinjiang separatist does not fit the bill. That's why those Xinjiang separatist will always be called separatist or activist

However, not calling one terrorist group is one thing, that does not mean they are justified by the media, activist and separatist can also launch terror attack you know.

 

[bobsm]

Double standard on terrorism is symptomatic of West's view

On Nov 18, the French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur (The New Observer) published an article on its website authored by staff writer Ursula Gauthier, which blamed the Chinese government's policies in the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region for terrorist attacks in China. That's a typical example of the West's double standard, which is hindering global efforts to fight terrorism, says an editorial in the Chinese edition of Global Times:

Gauthier's article claims that Muslim names are forbidden in Xinjiang and ethnic Uygur government staff must eat in public during Ramadan.

However, Such claims are refuted by Uygurs as nothing but lies.

After the terrorist attack in Paris on Nov 13 that claimed at least 132 lives, the Chinese government condemned terrorism and expressed its sympathy for the French people. Many Chinese people also expressed their condolences to the victims.

Guathier has noticed these because she includes them in her article, but she does not show any sympathy for the victims of the terrorist attacks in China.

It is shocking that she holds such deeply rooted prejudice against China. For her, it seems that every person should serve her politics.

She forgets that people all over the world have the same right to protect themselves from being killed for no reason. For her, it is evil to kill civilians in France, while it is "understandable" to kill civilians in China. She uses a different yardstick when terrorists kill innocent civilians in China.

In her view, only civilians killed by terrorists in the West deserve sympathy, but not the Chinese civilians who suffer the same fate. How ridiculous and absurd such an attitude is.

Being politically radical has so blinded some Western journalists such as Gauthier that they lose their common sense. They only know Western standards of "human rights". For that political purpose they dare to challenge the basic human norm that the killing of innocent civilians is a crime.

That hurts Chinese people. At a time when Chinese media and Chinese people had condemned the Paris attack and extended their support to the French people, it is offensive for the French magazine to publish such an article.

It is time the French media rethink such an ridiculous and unreasonable attitude. The Chinese people are friendly to the French people, who should have no reason to return evil for good. They should join hands in fighting terrorism.

Double standard on terrorism is symptomatic of West's view - People's Daily Online

 

[RIP Pak LAW]

Good job.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

One French magazine publishes an article and it's lumped it into a generic "West" viewpoint.