29 Dead in mass attack

[Alkaloid]

Kind of surprised this wasn't posted already. It's pretty grim.

Beijing: Chinese authorities have condemned a mass stabbing that has left at least 29 dead at a crowded railway station as a premeditated terrorist attack orchestrated by separatists from the restive western region of Xinjiang, as security experts warned of the possibility of more attacks across the country ahead of a key political meeting.

Police shot dead four attackers and arrested one, and were hunting other suspects in the attack on Saturday night which also left at least 143 injured at the Kunming Railway Station in Yunnan province, according to state media.

Eyewitnesses gave chilling accounts of as many as 10 masked, knife-wielding assailants dressed in black, slashing at crowds indiscriminately.
Police officers investigate the crime scene outside a railway station after an attack by knife wielding men leaving some 29 people dead in Kunming.

Police officers investigate the crime scene outside a railway station after an attack by knife wielding men leaving some 29 people dead in Kunming. Photo: AP

Wang Yu, a man in his twenties from Harbin, said his mother was killed after she failed to get away from attackers when she tripped over a chair.
Advertisement

"I wasn't able to pick up my mother, my father was trying to pull her away, [but] then the attacker stabbed my mother in the throat," he told official news agency Xinhua.

Local news outlets in Kunming relayed graphic scenes of victims prone on the train station floor in pools of blood. Eyewitnesses described the attackers as being equipped with multiple blades, leaving some buried in their victims during the stabbing frenzy. Others reported seeing assailants stabbing victims multiple times to ensure they were dead.
A woman reacts, at the crime scene outside a railway station after an attack, in Kunming, in southwestern China's Yunnan province.

Authorities have yet to identify the attackers but said "evidence found at the scene" showed it was a "an organised, premeditated violent terrorist attack" carried out by Xinjiang "separatist forces".

Chinese authorities have also blamed a series of violent incidents that have escalated in frequency and severity in the past year on extremists from the Muslim ethnic Uighur minority from Xinjiang, accusing them of conspiring with overseas based groups, including the murky East Turkestan Islamic Movement, in an effort to split Xinjiang from the rest of China.

Uighur rights groups say state media reports of violence in Xinjiang lack credibility, and that accusations of organised terror activity are merely used to justify oppressive government policies including restrictions on religion and culture.

While most of the recent violence has occurred in Xinjiang, Saturday's assault took place more than 1000 kilometres to the southeast in Yunnan, which has not had a history of unrest.

Chinese security experts said this was another sign, after an October suicide car attack at Tiananmen Square in Beijing, that there were plans to strike at targets throughout the country.

The timing of the attack, just three days before China's most important annual political set-piece event, the National People's Congress, kicks off in Beijing, also pointed at political motivations, they said.

"This time it's Kunming, but you can't rule out it happening in other places next time," said Li Wei, director of the anti-terrorism research centre of the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations.

Li Sheng, a Xinjiang expert from the China Academy of Social Sciences, said "East Turkestan forces are also playing politics, they know carrying out terrorist attacks at major national events like the National People's Congress can broaden their influence."

President Xi Jinping released a statement condemning the attack, calling for "all-out efforts" to bring the culprits to justice, and to "crack down on violent terrorist activities in all forms".

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/deadly-chin ... z2umwY49Ni

[Kamakazie Sith]

Horrible.

I dread the inevitable news broadcasts, talk show rants, and facebook posts from gun nuts saying "ban knives".

Of course, they'll gloss over the fact that the lone Virginia Tech shooter killed more people than this group of knife wielding men.

[Crossroads Inc.]

I really don't want to turn it into a gun debate, But my first thought is 10 people caused 29 deaths. Thats about 3 per person.
How many would it have been had they had Guns instead of knives?

[K. A. Pital]

East Turkestan islamic front = let's make a part of China into another Pakistan-Afghanistan. I think that sums up for how worthwhile a cause these men have killed.

[Iroscato]

I think this actually shocks me more than a mass shooting, because stabbing someone has always felt more personal - you have to get in very close to the victim, and it can take a lot of effort to overpower them and drive it home. For 10 guys to do this to roughly three people each is just horrific.
I'm not saying that gun crime doesn't deeply trouble me, but...ugh.

[Broken]

I think this actually shocks me more than a mass shooting, because stabbing someone has always felt more personal - you have to get in very close to the victim, and it can take a lot of effort to overpower them and drive it home. For 10 guys to do this to roughly three people each is just horrific.
I'm not saying that gun crime doesn't deeply trouble me, but...ugh.

Stabbing someone is more personal. There is a reason a warrior caste/aristocracy arose in multiple locations over the world in pre-gunpowder days. Hacking someone to death face to face without hesitation (especially when not in the heat of pitched battle) seems to requires fanaticism or long training since it doesn't appear to be something humans do easily, at least to people they regard as part of their "tribe".

[Patroklos]

Looks like we may be up to 33 fatities given some of the headlines this morning

[Gaidin]

I really don't want to turn it into a gun debate, But my first thought is 10 people caused 29 deaths. Thats about 3 per person.
How many would it have been had they had Guns instead of knives?

To be fair, there's also 143 more injured. It's hard and a bit unfair to just sum this up as 3 per person.

[Irbis]

I really don't want to turn it into a gun debate, But my first thought is 10 people caused 29 deaths. Thats about 3 per person.
How many would it have been had they had Guns instead of knives?

For comparison, 2008 Mumbai attack had 164 killed and 300+ wounded by 11 people.

Then of course, there is Breivik, 77 killed and 320+ wounded, alone.

[Channel72]

Obviously it's easier to kill more people with less effort using range weapons. I don't think anyone is going to argue with that.

However, pro-gun advocates will likely cite this as an example that even without guns, fanatical assholes will still find a way to cause damage.

Hey, Bin Laden killed 3,000 people with only like 12 dudes with box cutters, right?

[Ziggy Stardust]

East Turkestan islamic front = let's make a part of China into another Pakistan-Afghanistan. I think that sums up for how worthwhile a cause these men have killed.

Partially to try to avoid this thread devolving into another SD.net Gun Debate™, and partially out of interest, I'm curious if you would elaborate on this comment, Stas.

Are you saying that the response to this attack is going to cause a clusterfuck, or rather that the cause the attackers are supporting isn't worthwhile? I admit to knowing next to nothing about the issue, and of course I condemn any terrorist attacks of any sort, but from what I can tell these people simply want independence from China (for a region that is primarily and historically non-Chinese), which doesn't on its face seem like a ridiculous cause.

[Simon_Jester]

I would guess the main catch is that the dominant culture of the region is a lot more like that found in other Central Asian countries. Stas figures that if the (Islamic-fundie?) rebel groups in Xinjiang actually succeeded, the new Turkestan would be left as another chaotic battleground for Islamic fundamentalists to take over. At best that would lead to another state with a nominally functional government that is in practice very vulnerable to the fundies and in danger of becoming a puppet (like Pakistan); at worst, an outright Islamic theocracy.

Since Stas seems to be pretty well content with the technocratic but basically competent and low-corruption government of modern China, it is no surprise he'd see something like the Taliban as a downgrade.

[mr friendly guy]

I would guess the main catch is that the dominant culture of the region is a lot more like that found in other Central Asian countries. Stas figures that if the (Islamic-fundie?) rebel groups in Xinjiang actually succeeded, the new Turkestan would be left as another chaotic battleground for Islamic fundamentalists to take over. At best that would lead to another state with a nominally functional government that is in practice very vulnerable to the fundies and in danger of becoming a puppet (like Pakistan); at worst, an outright Islamic theocracy.

Since Stas seems to be pretty well content with the technocratic but basically competent and low-corruption government of modern China, it is no surprise he'd see something like the Taliban as a downgrade.

Corruption isn't low in China. However they are competent enough to get lots of things done DESPITE the corruption. Things are supposedly improving slowly. Of course it will take a lot to get worse than the Taliban mark II.

East Turkestan islamic front = let's make a part of China into another Pakistan-Afghanistan. I think that sums up for how worthwhile a cause these men have killed.

Partially to try to avoid this thread devolving into another SD.net Gun Debate™, and partially out of interest, I'm curious if you would elaborate on this comment, Stas.

Are you saying that the response to this attack is going to cause a clusterfuck, or rather that the cause the attackers are supporting isn't worthwhile? I admit to knowing next to nothing about the issue, and of course I condemn any terrorist attacks of any sort, but from what I can tell these people simply want independence from China (for a region that is primarily and historically non-Chinese), which doesn't on its face seem like a ridiculous cause.

That's actually a bit more complicated than saying historically non Chinese. The region the Qing called Xinjiang (new territory) has been contested for ages between various forces, including the various Chinese dynasties who to be blunt were there before the Uyghur empire. Its just that the latest round its comes back under the control of the Chinese. From the point of the view of the Qing, of course it would be new territory because while their Chinese subjects might have held it once upon a time, the Manchu rulers certainly did not.

Wiki sums it up here.

With a documented history of at least 2,500 years, a succession of peoples and empires has vied for control over all or parts of this territory. Before the 21st century, all or part of the region has been ruled or controlled by the Tocharians, Yuezhi, Xiongnu Empire, Xianbei state, Kushan Empire, Rouran Khaganate, Han Empire, Former Liang, Former Qin, Later Liang, Western Liáng, Rouran Khaganate, Tang Dynasty, Tibetan Empire, Uyghur Khaganate, Kara-Khitan Khanate, Mongol Empire, Yuan Dynasty, Chagatai Khanate, Moghulistan, Northern Yuan, Yarkent Khanate, Dzungar Khanate, Qing Dynasty, the Republic of China and, since 1950, the People's Republic of China.

Now past ownership doesn't necessarily translate to current ownership. However if you don't accept that argument, its still difficult for people to argue historically non Chinese when evidence suggests Chinese dynasties were there before Uyghurs exerted control during the weakening of the Tang dynasty.

Edit - the Uyghurs do have a right to live on that piece of land. But then so do other Chinese citizens no matter the ethnic group. I guess people have to learn to get along and reject extremism.

[K. A. Pital]

China's a lot better on corruption than many people realize.
http://gijn.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/fil ... 3-Dec1.jpg
What is even more interesting in that their corruption score is getting better over the decades, not worse (like in India).

[mr friendly guy]

It seems early on various Western organisations ie news outlets and the US government used every word to describe the knife attack but terrorism or at least putting terrorism in quotation marks. This made Chinese netizens point out the double standard by using the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby where the word terrorism was used to describe the event.

http://y2.ifengimg.com/cmpp/2014/03/03/ ... 3a86a2.jpg

I guess propaganda is bad only when the other side does it.

xinhua noted this reluctance to actually say terrorism, although apparently even the US has now called it terrorism.

In other news I have heard people saying that one of the perpetrators caught was a 16 year old girl. The government hasn't officially AFAIK confirmed their identities yet but her picture seems to be easily available on the internet. I would post more once we get official confirmation rather than the rumours that are floating around.

[Irbis]

China's a lot better on corruption than many people realize.

Is it? Or is the scale of the corruption just hidden? What exactly methods Transparency International used to make this chart? Quite a lot of it seems to be 'we will grade people we hate lower, while poor and exotic* countries higher'. I don't know, quite a lot of states on the list makes no sense to me, including a lot of states supposedly (according to TI) below Poland. I'd rate them higher or equal, at least.

Also, on second look, China shares its rank with a lot of half-failed states. I wouldn't say it's reason to be proud.

*cynic in me says 'countries with languages we can't understand so we can't rate them low on accidental exaggerated anecdotes alone'...

[K. A. Pital]

China's a lot better on corruption than many people realize.

Is it? Or is the scale of the corruption just hidden? What exactly methods Transparency International used to make this chart? Quite a lot of it seems to be 'we will grade people we hate lower, while poor and exotic* countries higher'. I don't know, quite a lot of states on the list makes no sense to me, including a lot of states supposedly (according to TI) below Poland. I'd rate them higher or equal, at least.

Also, on second look, China shares its rank with a lot of half-failed states. I wouldn't say it's reason to be proud.

*cynic in me says 'countries with languages we can't understand so we can't rate them low on accidental exaggerated anecdotes alone'...

Well, first of all I've seen many metrics, but I think the corruption perceptions index is one of the most sensible (it uses several expert surveys). We can also see the opinion poll-based indexes, since they reflect what the people think about the corruption. I'll try to find some.

Post-Soviet states, especially Central Asian ones, in this index are way more corrupt than many East Asian states; this is my opinion as well, I saw some nations first-hand and talked a lot to the people. Scale of corruption is a relative thing. If we find that a person embezzled several million yuan, it is outrageous, but for a country of 1,5 billion on a relative scale it is not as bad as if the same or greater amount of money was wasted by officials in a country with 1/10 the population (like Russia).

The top of the list and the bottom of the list make a lot of sense to me (top are all small-population countries with an efficient bureaucracy - the only way you can have almost no corruption), and the middle rankings I think are more questionable.