免翻 墙 直连本站: http://tiny.cc/meyarw
【新唐人2013年06月14日讯】福建厦门公车爆炸案，被中共警方24小时宣告破案，警方宣称的所谓纵火者，是大火中的死者之一陈水总，虽然警方破案的疑点重重，被民众质疑，但是，11号，福建《厦门日报》发表评论文章 指称，陈水总丧心病狂，全社会必须〝共诛之〞，这篇评论还把民众质疑的声音称为〝杂音〞，说是转移法律定性，掩盖矛盾，滥同情。不过，评论一出，舆论一边倒的对中共当局提出抨击。
6月11号，《厦门日报》发表题为〝陈水总丧心病狂，全社会必须共诛之〞社论，内容指称：陈水总犯了反社会罪行，报复社会、手段毒辣、不可饶恕。并把民众的质疑声，定义成：滥同情。
这篇社论一出，立即引来网路数万民众一边倒的斥责。
大陆作家崔成浩在微博写道〝《厦门日报》不诛贪官，只诛被逼迫致疯的‘屁民’，挟天下民意肆意咆哮，暴露出冷血转移焦点的无耻用心。〞
中国 《权利运动》网站 负责人胡军指出，《厦门日报》发表这篇社论，明显是掩盖真相，挑起仇恨。他认为，最该诛的是逼迫老百姓走上绝路的当权者。
中国《权利运动》网站负责人胡军：〝我们的问题 ，是不是陈水总做的，现在还要打个问号。哪怕就是陈水总做的，那我们就要看看，为什么这个人变成这个样子？谁干的？这个体制背后造成这种恶果，是谁干的？当权者天天在这作恶，为什么不去遣责他们？他们为什么不出来承担责任？〞
原《河北人民广播电台》编辑朱欣欣指出，官方把公车爆炸案当作孤立的事件，本身就是为了推卸责任，转移公众的注意力。
原《河北人民广播电台》编辑朱欣欣：〝把所有社会背后责任，官方的责任全部推到一个人的身上，这是特别不人道的，也是不公正的，他本人遭遇到一些不公，他生活上的一些困境，最关键是官方各个机构不负责任所造成的。不能完全归咎于他个人，官方狠批陈水总这个人，是一种别有用心的作法。〞
大陆 律师唐荆陵也表示，他根本不相信陈水总是嫌疑人，他认为，当局24小时〝火速〞结案就值得怀疑 。
大陆律师唐荆陵：〝如果说当局要确定这个嫌疑人，据我们所知，当局要去调看相关的录像，这个都不是一天能看完的，而且像中国政府方面对这些影响比较大的案件的调查结论，政府本身的公信力不够，比如说，相关事件的重要资料都不肯公开，或者直接把有关的东西毁灭掉，总的态度，我是不相信当局的结论的。〞
另外，大陆维权 律师 袁裕来也发微博说，13亿中国人共诛的不应该是已经死去的陈水总。如果不去深挖造成恶性事件的根源，甚至连死者所谓的〝遗书〞也拒绝公开，不能避免悲剧重演。
厦门公交车爆炸案，发生在6月7号晚上6点多，造成了47人死亡 、34人受伤。8号，警方宣布破案，并声称，是访民陈水总由于悲观厌世而洩愤纵火，证据是他生前的〝遗书〞和〝微博〞，但是，所谓的〝遗书〞，陈水总家人说，没有看过。
而警方所谓的〝陈水总微博〞也被推翻。大陆媒体人丁来峰指出，查看陈水总的微博，发现是事发前一天才注册，一个年龄已经60岁初小文化的人，两三秒更新一条微博，而且还能发长微博？实在令人存疑，他指出，不能因为陈是上访 户又死无对证，就极速结案卸下责任。
6月8号，幸存者江晓婷对上海《东方早报》说，她当时坐在后方靠窗的位置，在陈水总上车的〝金山站〞前一站，就闻到浓重的汽油味……
根据厦门警方公布的监控录像，当时，陈水总还在金山站候车。
采访编辑/李韵 后制/李智远
Hundreds of thousands of netizens criticize official media for encouraging public condemnation of accused Xiamen bus bomber
Within 24 hours, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)
government police declared the Xiamen bus bombing case
an arson committed by Chen Shuizong, who died
in the bombing.
But citizens are skeptical of this conclusion due
to the amount of questionable evidence.
However, on June 11 the official Fujian newspaper,
Xiamen Daily, published commentary calling Chen Shuizong
a “total lunatic” who should be “publicly condemned
by society.”
This article shrugged off the collective voice
of skeptical citizens as a “murmur,” and said those
who question want to shift legal characterization,
conceal the conflict, and abuse sympathy.
However, immediately after this commentary was published,
the public criticized the CCP authority.
On June 11, Xiamen Daily published an editorial entitled,
“Chen Shuizong is a total lunatic,
the whole society must condemn him.”
The article stated that Chen Shuizong committed an antisocial
crime using sinister means to seek revenge on society.
“He is unforgivable,” it stated. The article accused the
doubtful public as having excessive sympathy.
The editorial immediately attracted tens of thousands
of netizens who denounced the paper as being “one-sided.”
On his micro blog, Cui Chenghao, mainland Chinese writer,
said Xiamen Daily doesn’t condemn corrupt officials,
it condemns old people who were forced to mad
by the government.
The media used the name of public opinion to recklessly
growl, exposing its shameless intention to shift focus.
Hu Jun, director of the Rights Movement website, pointed
out Xiamen Daily’s intention in publishing this editorial is to hide the truth and stir up hate.
He thinks the people who should be punished most are
the men in power who force the people to choose death.
Hu Jun, director of the Rights Movement website: “We still
question whether Chen Shuizong was the bombing perpetrator.
Even if it was committed by Chen Shuizong,
we still need to understand why this person did this.
How did he become like this?
Who made the disaster result in this kind of system?
The authorities do evil everyday,
why does nobody condemn them?
Why don’t they come forward to assume responsibility?”
Zhu Xinxin, the former editor of Hebei People’s Radio,
pointed out that the government treated the bombing case
as an isolated case in order to shirk its responsibility
and divert the public’s attention.
Zhu Xinxin: “Piling the social responsibility and official responsibility
onto an ordinary person is particularly inhumane and unjust.
He was treated unfair, and had some difficulties in his life.
The crux of the matter is that it’s caused
by the irresponsibility of each level of government.
He cannot be held fully accountable.
There is an ulterior motive behind the severe criticism
of Chen Shuizong by officials.”
Tang Jingling, a Mainland Chinese lawyer, also said that
he has never believed Chen Shuizong to be a suspect.
He believes the investigation was rushed and that people
should question why authorities hurriedly closed the case within 24 hours.
Tang Jingling: “If the authorities want to confirm a suspect,
as we know, they have to review all surveillance videos.
They can’t finish in one day. Also, the credibility of the
Chinese government isn’t good in the investigation of big issues.
For example, (the government) refuses to disclose important
relevant documents, destroys related evidence, etc.
In generally, I don’t believe the government conclusion.”
In addition, Yuan Yulai, a human rights lawyer in mainland
China also published a micro-blog stating the person
who should be condemned by 1.3 billion
Chinese shouldn’t be Chen Shuizong.
If authorities don’t dig to the root of
why this disaster occurred, and
even refuses to publish the so-called “suicide note”,
it can’t avoid the same tragedy in the future, he said.
The Xiamen bus bombing case happened past 6 o’clock
on June 7, there were 47 fatalities, and 37 were injured.
On June 8, the police claimed the perpetrator was
Chen Shuizong, a petitioner who set fire to the bus
to release his anger due to his pessimistic outlook on life
and suicidal tendencies.
The evidence is his suicide note and his micro blog.
But the family of Chen say they have never seen
the suicide note.
Also the so-called “Chen Shuizong’s micro blog”
was found to be fake.
Ding Laifeng, a media worker in mainland China, said
that the micro blog of Chen Shuizong was registered one day before the disaster.
It is doubted that a 60-year-old person with only a primary
school education can write a long micro blog and post a micro blog in 2-3 seconds
He pointed out that the authority shouldn’t have closed
the case and shirked responsibility just because Chen Shuizong is a petitioner and died without leaving any evidence behind.
On June 8, Jiang Xiaoting, a survivor of the bombing, told
Shanghai Oriental Morning Post that she sat close to the rear
window that day, and she smelled a heavy gasoline odor
when the bus passed the stop before Jinshan station.
According to the surveillance video published by police,
Chen Shuizong was waiting for the bus in Jinshan station at that time.
本文标签：中共, 中国政府, 唐荆陵, 大陆作家, 大陆律师, 屁民, 崔成浩, 律师, 政府, 新唐人, 权利运动, 法律, 真相, 翻墙, 袁裕来, 访民, 贪官
没有评论:
发表评论