by Ennis (a forumner in China Daily forum)
First of all, you admit yourself that what happened in Tibet in mid-March was “rioting”. Yes, you got it damned right there. Rioting naturally means “violence”, by your dictionary or mine. You hit the bull’s eye doubly there. But then, you managed somehow to turn your bow around and fire the arrow at your own foot, — by using the word “repression”.
Hey, Buddy, use but your brain. That was admittedly a revolt perpetrated by a gang of rioters in Lhasa who beat, looted, trashed, vandalized, knife-stabbed, burned, and killed innocent citizens in cold blood. Please have the guts to admit to the responsibility of any government in the world, including the Chinese, to take measures against such crimes in order to guarantee public order. Confronted with such nefarious rioting, due actions by the government are just legitimate law-enforcement.
So, that’s but a required response to a repugnant rebellion, but not a “crackdown” with “brute force”, or “high-handed” “repression”. There you audaciously abused your dictionary, or mine.
In a flight of fantasy, had those vile rioters been transposed and found in Los Angeles, or New York city, they should perhaps be poor dead souls now, for they had all been shot on the spot by the LAPD or NYPD law-enforcers.
Just after shooting at your own foot, you rushed to slap yourself in the face, by saying “for almost two days, rioters met with little resistance from security officers, a sure sign of bureaucratic paralysis”.
Tremendous twisting technique! Do you do your job just by using wild fantasies? Let me tell you why your gawky guesstimate has gone grossly busted. In the first few days of the rioting, the Chinese authorities had shown utmost restraint, before they were compelled to act in resolute response to arrest the worsening situation.
How could you be so deviant from the truth? As a sage once said, prejudice is farther afield of the truth than ignorance. Which case is yours? But in either, that’s not at all “elegant”, but execrable.
Guess what, China does not need your sympathy, but you need some decency — in being simply objective in your reporting.
With such a shoddy essay, you discredit your own magazine. That’s the high cost of being other than elegant, professionally.
Permit me to brave you to have the balls, or ethics for that matter, to print my comment, so as to help control your own damage.