【新唐人2013年06月14日訊】福建廈門公車爆炸案，被中共警方24小時宣告破案，警方宣稱的所謂縱火者，是大火中的死者之一陳水總，雖然警方破案的疑點重重，被民眾質疑，但是，11號，福建《廈門日報》發表評論文章指稱，陳水總喪心病狂，全社會必須「共誅之」，這篇評論還把民眾質疑的聲音稱為「雜音」，說是轉移法律定性，掩蓋矛盾，濫同情。不過，評論一出，輿論一邊倒的對中共當局提出抨擊。
6月11號，《廈門日報》發表題為「陳水總喪心病狂，全社會必須共誅之」社論，內容指稱：陳水總犯了反社會罪行，報復社會、手段毒辣、不可饒恕。並把民眾的質疑聲，定義成：濫同情。
這篇社論一出，立即引來網路數萬民眾一邊倒的斥責。
大陸作家崔成浩在微博寫道「《廈門日報》不誅貪官，只誅被逼迫致瘋的『屁民』，挾天下民意肆意咆哮，暴露出冷血轉移焦點的無恥用心。」
中國《權利運動》網站負責人胡軍指出，《廈門日報》發表這篇社論，明顯是掩蓋真相，挑起仇恨。他認為，最該誅的是逼迫老百姓走上絕路的當權者。
中國《權利運動》網站負責人胡軍：「我們的問題，是不是陳水總做的，現在還要打個問號。哪怕就是陳水總做的，那我們就要看看，為甚麼這個人變成這個樣子？誰幹的？這個體制背後造成這種惡果，是誰幹的？當權者天天在這作惡，為甚麼不去遣責他們？他們為甚麼不出來承擔責任？」
原《河北人民廣播電臺》編輯朱欣欣指出，官方把公車爆炸案當作孤立的事件，本身就是為了推卸責任，轉移公眾的注意力。
原《河北人民廣播電臺》編輯朱欣欣：「把所有社會背後責任，官方的責任全部推到一個人的身上，這是特別不人道的，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，最關鍵是官方各個機構不負責任所造成的。不能完全歸咎於他個人，官方狠批陳水總這個人，是一種別有用心的作法。」
大陸律師唐荊陵也表示，他根本不相信陳水總是嫌疑人，他認為，當局24小時「火速」結案就值得懷疑。
大陸律師唐荊陵：「如果說當局要確定這個嫌疑人，據我們所知，當局要去調看相關的錄像，這個都不是一天能看完的，而且像中國政府方面對這些影響比較大的案件的調查結論，政府本身的公信力不夠，比如說，相關事件的重要資料都不肯公開，或者直接把有關的東西毀滅掉，總的態度，我是不相信當局的結論的。」
另外，大陸維權律師袁裕來也發微博說，13億中國人共誅的不應該是已經死去的陳水總。如果不去深挖造成惡性事件的根源，甚至連死者所謂的「遺書」也拒絕公開，不能避免悲劇重演。
廈門公交車爆炸案，發生在6月7號晚上6點多，造成了47人死亡、34人受傷。8號，警方宣佈破案，並聲稱，是訪民陳水總由於悲觀厭世而洩憤縱火，證據是他生前的「遺書」和「微博」，但是，所謂的「遺書」，陳水總家人說，沒有看過。
而警方所謂的「陳水總微博」也被推翻。大陸媒體人丁來峰指出，查看陳水總的微博，發現是事發前一天才註冊，一個年齡已經60歲初小文化的人，兩三秒更新一條微博，而且還能發長微博？實在令人存疑，他指出，不能因為陳是上訪戶又死無對證，就極速結案卸下責任。
6月8號，倖存者江曉婷對上海《東方早報》說，她當時坐在後方靠窗的位置，在陳水總上車的「金山站」前一站，就聞到濃重的汽油味……
根據廈門警方公布的監控錄像，當時，陳水總還在金山站候車。
採訪編輯/李韻 後製/李智遠
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.
6月11號，《廈門日報》發表題為「陳水總喪心病狂，全社會必須共誅之」社論，內容指稱：陳水總犯了反社會罪行，報復社會、手段毒辣、不可饒恕。並把民眾的質疑聲，定義成：濫同情。
這篇社論一出，立即引來網路數萬民眾一邊倒的斥責。
大陸作家崔成浩在微博寫道「《廈門日報》不誅貪官，只誅被逼迫致瘋的『屁民』，挾天下民意肆意咆哮，暴露出冷血轉移焦點的無恥用心。」
中國《權利運動》網站負責人胡軍指出，《廈門日報》發表這篇社論，明顯是掩蓋真相，挑起仇恨。他認為，最該誅的是逼迫老百姓走上絕路的當權者。
中國《權利運動》網站負責人胡軍：「我們的問題，是不是陳水總做的，現在還要打個問號。哪怕就是陳水總做的，那我們就要看看，為甚麼這個人變成這個樣子？誰幹的？這個體制背後造成這種惡果，是誰幹的？當權者天天在這作惡，為甚麼不去遣責他們？他們為甚麼不出來承擔責任？」
原《河北人民廣播電臺》編輯朱欣欣指出，官方把公車爆炸案當作孤立的事件，本身就是為了推卸責任，轉移公眾的注意力。
原《河北人民廣播電臺》編輯朱欣欣：「把所有社會背後責任，官方的責任全部推到一個人的身上，這是特別不人道的，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，最關鍵是官方各個機構不負責任所造成的。不能完全歸咎於他個人，官方狠批陳水總這個人，是一種別有用心的作法。」
大陸律師唐荊陵也表示，他根本不相信陳水總是嫌疑人，他認為，當局24小時「火速」結案就值得懷疑。
大陸律師唐荊陵：「如果說當局要確定這個嫌疑人，據我們所知，當局要去調看相關的錄像，這個都不是一天能看完的，而且像中國政府方面對這些影響比較大的案件的調查結論，政府本身的公信力不夠，比如說，相關事件的重要資料都不肯公開，或者直接把有關的東西毀滅掉，總的態度，我是不相信當局的結論的。」
另外，大陸維權律師袁裕來也發微博說，13億中國人共誅的不應該是已經死去的陳水總。如果不去深挖造成惡性事件的根源，甚至連死者所謂的「遺書」也拒絕公開，不能避免悲劇重演。
廈門公交車爆炸案，發生在6月7號晚上6點多，造成了47人死亡、34人受傷。8號，警方宣佈破案，並聲稱，是訪民陳水總由於悲觀厭世而洩憤縱火，證據是他生前的「遺書」和「微博」，但是，所謂的「遺書」，陳水總家人說，沒有看過。
而警方所謂的「陳水總微博」也被推翻。大陸媒體人丁來峰指出，查看陳水總的微博，發現是事發前一天才註冊，一個年齡已經60歲初小文化的人，兩三秒更新一條微博，而且還能發長微博？實在令人存疑，他指出，不能因為陳是上訪戶又死無對證，就極速結案卸下責任。
6月8號，倖存者江曉婷對上海《東方早報》說，她當時坐在後方靠窗的位置，在陳水總上車的「金山站」前一站，就聞到濃重的汽油味……
根據廈門警方公布的監控錄像，當時，陳水總還在金山站候車。
採訪編輯/李韻 後製/李智遠
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.
