So why are you applying double standards here when it comes to t e r r o r i s m in a non-white nation such as China when it has now become clear that R was associated with the random termination of the lives of 184 people and wounding of more than a thousand -- all premeditated with the victims being randomly selected (the most terrifying aspect of this pogrom was its random and unexpected nature)?
Remember that the termination action occurred simultaneously in different parts of the city, echoed in real time by parallel actions against Chinese at the consulate in Amsterdam and elsewhere. The weapons included truckloads of brick-size stones -- not found on the streets of the capital city of the province U, as I had been to that city twice in the last seven years and I know that for a fact. That's evidence of a foreign-instigated riot, not to mention intercepted cell and internet messages pointing to the same culprits. Many of the perpetrators came from border areas and not necessarily from U itself.
Isn't it true, therefore, that you are again applying double standards here?
So a terrorist organization with its headquarters established in Washington D.C. on April 15, 2004 that has now been linked to the 7.5.09 riot is tolerable and okay with you, while bin Laden's Al Qaeda is not just because their target victims belong to neither the same nation nor the same ethnic group. Is that it?
Your quoting this Australian newspaper "Age" here is particularly repulsive especially since the film is cloaked in such romantic terms -- the "love story" between a terrorist husband and his wife who also happened to have benefited the most from the policies of the Gaige Kaifang.
That this woman is a pathological liar has now been documented through and through, and for the likes of you -- an Aussie farmhand who used to terrorize the outer forums anonymously, a piece of xit really -- to try to lecture China on what constitutes her internal affair and what doesn't is hilarious to the extreme.