这几天观看中国媒体有关卡扎菲命运的报道与评论,让人觉得这位利比亚独裁者之死始终牵扯着遥远的东方大国——中国的每一根神经。只是官方与民间的反应有如冰火两重天,民间用各种方式表达快意,官方则用各种说法强调利比亚内战的代价以及不人道,硬将这场人民自发的反抗说成是西方为了石油的阴谋。
其中最有信息含量的应该是这么一些文章: “卡扎菲留给利比亚五大难题:政治经济重建存悬念”,“血淋淋的卡扎菲警示中东 欧美根本不可信”,这两篇文章看起来是为利比亚人民担心,但实际上却完全是设身处地之言,充满了对本国人民及国际体系的恐惧。
先说“五大难题”一文。在西方等正常国家眼中卡扎菲那些怪异残暴之行,在这篇文章的作者眼中却被视为“特立独行”。文章列出的“五大难题”依次是新政府的产生、如何结束内战,经济重建、战争红利如何分配,如何重返国际社会等。这些问题有些确实存在,但无一不被作者夸大成几乎不可解决之难题。比如“利比亚的国名由‘大阿拉伯利比亚社会主义民众国’改为简单的‘利比亚’”,作者认为这是“国家发展道路尚未确定”,就未免有些杞人忧天了;军人脱军装本也不是大问题,因为反对武装本来就非正规军人;卡扎菲之死意味内战结束,但作者却还要假想出无数忠诚者要为卡氏奋战。部落与部族矛盾,卡扎菲在世就一直存在,并非新政府带来的问题。至于“如何重返国际社会”这个问题,则完全是作者臆想出来的问题,因为美国、欧盟甚至俄罗斯等国都早就承认利比亚过渡委员会为合法政府。只是因为中国政府与利比亚过渡委的关系始终疙疙瘩瘩。所以真实的问题应该是中国如何在“利比亚重建”中寻找一席位置,尽可能延续中国在卡扎菲时期的一些利益关系。
“血淋淋的卡扎菲警示中东”一文,则赤裸裸地表达了权力者对失去权力的担忧,看起来是说“卡扎菲的命运或许强烈的提醒也门总统萨利赫,叙利亚总统巴沙尔,千万不能交权,千万不能示弱,因为一旦交权或者示弱,结局会很悲惨,一旦打输了就什么都没了”,但实际上是在抒发自身的恐惧。作者的良策是:一是要这些国家找“强悍的大哥罩着”,言下之意是要这些国家的专制政府团结在中国这位“带头大哥”周围;二是“一定要搞定自己国内的反对派,不能让他们成为带路党”,防止他们与境外势力勾结;三是要团结人民;四是绝对不要相信欧美列强。其中除了第三点是空话(人民与当局已经离心离德)之外,第一点虽然是中国政府所愿,但这些中东国家未必就认中国作“带头大哥”。二、三两点则是北京早就在戮力推行的“维稳大政”。
分析至此,任何心智正常的人都明白,这些文章并非真代卡扎菲这位过气的“朋友”鸣不平——中国外交部于10月23日由非洲司司长卢沙野出面声明“卡扎菲不是中国的朋友”,而是代北京政权的未来在担忧。至于这样表达担忧是否妥当或有失体面,看起来北京似乎也乱了章程。
以前萨达姆的专制独裁政权被美国发动的伊战推翻,中国将这场以反恐战争形式出现的民主与独裁之战说成是外部势力干预的结果,这一说法使得中国人很难分清其中是非。但这次利比亚内战是在人民已经起来、凭借自身力量很难取胜并吁请国际社会介入,谈不上是外部势力强行干预。至于其他的专制者在看到卡扎菲的下场之后,是主动放弃政权还是继续顽抗,则完全取决于他们自身对国内局势的判断。我相信,北京提示这些国家不可信任欧美,但在这些国家的掌权者眼中,北京可能更不可相信,这从他们将搜刮来的资产全数存放欧美国家银行可证。在“第三波民主化”及今年的“阿拉伯之春”中,北京不仅从未支持收留过任何一位好朋友,甚至缺乏美国及欧洲几个大国的斡旋能力。
中国方面(并非民间)在卡扎菲之死上有个最大的遗憾,那就是虽然早知卡扎菲失国在即,但希望其履行诺言,战死在沙场上,以保“反美英雄”风采,供鼓励驱策同类以用。没承想独裁者个个都是懦夫,大权在握时均视他人生命如草芥,随意杀人几成家常便饭,何尝想到过要珍视他人生命?但临到自己面临灭亡之际,却分外留恋人世,几乎都不愿选择自杀以保尊严。萨达姆如此,卡扎菲也如此,不是被人从地窖里揪出来,就是在下水管道里被抓,所谓“反美英雄”风采荡然无存,让同类颜面尽丧。
至于中国有人呼吁要善待卡扎菲的尸体,这方面倒是不劳中国方面操心了。因为在政治翻盘后羞辱失败者的尸体这种方法已为现代文明所不取,利比亚过渡政府已经表示要将卡扎菲尸体交还给卡氏家族。但有“掘墓鞭尸”之传统的中国却很难说,“文革”时期,中共信任的红卫兵不仅辱及大成至圣文先王孔子与清官楷模包拯遗骨,就连中共第三任总书记瞿秋白的遗骨也被掘出来并称为“狗骨”展示,这就是周恩来与邓小平都要将骨灰撒入江河湖海的主要原因。但我想,要想根除这种侮辱遗体的陋习,请先从善待活人、尤其是政治反对派开始吧。
The Downfall of Gaddafi overshadows Beijing
The Downfall of Gaddafi overshadows Beijing
By He Qinglian on Oct 24, 2011
[translated from http://voachineseblog.com/heqinglian/2011/10/gadhafis-death-and-beijing/]
http://hqlenglish.blogspot.com/2011/10/downfall-of-gaddafi.html
Reading reports and commentaries about Muammar Gaddafi by Chinese media, I got the impression that somehow the death of this dictator gets on every nerve of China, the distant nation in the East. While the Chinese public cheer his downfall in all sorts of ways, the reaction from the government cannot be more different: by resorting to various expressions to stress the cost, and the cruelty of Libyan civil war, the officials deliberately portray this spontaneous resistance of the people as a Western plot to get oil.
Among those articles by China’s mouthpieces, the following two are loaded with the largest amount of message. “The Five puzzles Gaddafi left behind in Libya” and “Gaddafi all over in blood: a warning sign to the Middle East that Europe and the United States are utterly untrustworthy”. On the face of it, these two articles showed concern for the Libyan people, but in reality the two articles revealed the fear the authors have toward their compatriots and the international system.
Let’s start with the article “The Five puzzles Gaddafi left behind in Libya”. Muammar Gaddafi ‘s behavior, seen in the eyes of normal countries of the West as bizarre and brutal, was what the author seen as “idiosyncratic”. The five puzzles listed out in the article included: the formation of a new government, the mean to end the civil war, the distribution of war bonus, and the way to return to the international community.
While some of these are genuine problems, the author has blown them all out of proportion into nearly unsolvable deadlocks.
For example, the author saw the country’s changes of name from “the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya” to “Libya” as an indication of “uncertainty in how the country is to move forward”. This view is somewhat like screaming “the sky is falling”.
The uprising forces’ taking off their uniform was not something to make a fuss out of either, they are not formal soldiers in the first place after all. And instead of seeing the death of Muammar Gaddafi as a sign that the civil war has ended, the author imagines there are still numerous forces loyal to the toppled leader that would keep fighting for him.
As for the conflict between different tribes, this problem was already there when Muammar Gaddafi was in power, it wasn’t brought about by the new government. And the question of how Libya is to return to the international community is a puzzle created out of the author’s imagination: the United States, the European Union, and even Russia have recognized the TNC as the legitimate government, with China the only country that hasn’t completely sorted out its relation with the TNC.
Hence the real issue should be how China is to secure a position in “rebuilding Libya”, and how to maintain China’s interests since the time of Muammar Gaddafi.
And the article “Gaddafi all over in blood” expressed unreservedly the worry those in power have about losing it. It read as if the writer was saying the fate of Muammar Gaddafi may be a powerful reminder to Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh, and Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, that they should never surrender their power, that they should never show signs of weakness, otherwise they would have to face a miserable end. Once they lose the fight everything would be lost. But these are very much China’s own fear.
To prevent these from happening, he offered four suggestions to those dictators: first, these countries seek patronage from a “mighty big brother”, that’s to say, these autocratic regimes should look to China and form an alliance with it; second, to prevent the oppositions inside their countries from collaborating with external forces in overthrowing their governments, these countries should “fix” the oppositions; third, unite the people; and fourth, never trust European powers and the United States.
Of these four suggestions, the third one is empty talk: the people in those countries are already at odds with their government. The first one is what China wish for, but it is not likely that these Middle East countries would look at China that way. As for the second suggestion, it actually means the policy to “maintain stability”, one that Beijing has put into practice all along.
People should be able to see these articles are written not with the purpose of mourning an “old friend” – Director-general of Department of African Affairs of China’s Foreign Ministry, Lu Shaye, had stated on October 23 that Muammar Gaddafi was not a friend of China”. Instead, these articles revealed Beijing’s worries about its future. But whether revealing the worries this way is appropriate or graceful, Beijing seems to be so at a loss that it didn’t think this over.
When Saddam Hussein’s autocratic regime was toppled by U.S. led coalition forces, China said it was the result of external forces’ intervention, a statement that made the Chinese people hard to determine the correct picture there.
This time round, the Libyan people have already stood up against the regime, only that they could hardly win the battle on their own and they appealed to international community to step in, Beijing could not say it’s another forceful intervention from external forces. Whether the remaining dictators choose to step down or to keep fighting after they saw the end of Muammar Gaddafi would be up to their understanding of the situations inside their countries.
Beijing warns these countries not to trust Europe and the United States. But I believe that in the eyes of dictators in these countries, Beijing may be even less trustworthy. One can tell this simply by the fact that they deposit all the funds they amassed with banks in Europre and the United States.
During the Third Wave of Democratization and the Arab Spring this year, Beijing has not offer support or shelter to any of it good friends; and it hasn’t the power to mediate like the United States and major powers in Europe do.
The greatest disappointment China, excluding its general public, has on the death of Gaddafi was that, while it became aware of Muammar Gaddafi’s inevitable downfall long ago, it wished he would honor his words and died on the battle ground, so that his image of “Anti-American hero” could be preserved and could be used as an example to encourage others of its kind.
Yet it didn’t realize that all dictators are cowards. They couldn’t care less about the lives of others when they are in power, giving out orders to kill is just part of their daily business. But when they themselves are doomed, dictators would have the strongest desire to stay alive. Almost none of the dictators would choose to take their own lives to preserve their own dignity. Saddam Hussein didn’t take his life. So didn’t Muammar Gaddafi. They were either dragged out from the cellar or were caught inside the sewer. So much for their image of “anti-American hero”. The way they died bought total disgrace on others of their kind.
Some in China urged that the body of Gaddafi be treated nicely. I would say this is what China doesn’t have to worry about. Modern civilization would not insult the corpse of those who had been overthrown. The Libyan transitional government has already pleadged to give the body of Muammar Gaddafi back to his family.
But whether China, a country with the tradition of “digging up graves to flog the dead”, would treat nicely the body of fallen opponents would be hard to say. During the Cultural Revolution, the Red Guards didn’t just destroy the tombs of Confucius and Bao Zheng, an official from Song dynasty who was best known for integrity in China; they also dug out and displayed in public the remains of Qu Qiubai, the third general secretary of the CCP, calling those dog bones.
This was the main reason Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping requested that their cremated ashes be scattered into the sea. But then I think, if China’s to curb the ugly custom of insulting the dead, it may as well begin with treating nicely the living, and in particular the political opposition.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
是啊,从萨达姆、本拉登直到卡扎菲,个个都与中共一样,杀人如麻,惜命如金。每个人都是反美英雄,但最后都成了狗熊。
I love u ,give me an email
这阴影的来源在于不承认人权,因此,在人权被世界各国普遍认同的今天,恐怕今后的阴影会只多不少。
何女士,同为邵阳老乡,一直很钦佩您的成就,但是您此文实在是很有问题。
1、不知道您说的官方是啥,拿着两篇出处都没著名的文章当官方,有些搞笑吧。我查了一下,第一篇“卡扎菲留给利比亚五大难题:政治经济重建存悬念”,来源《新京报》,这是一个股份制的报纸,这都能算官方,看看它的变迁史都可以算地方媒体了?至于第二篇文章么,貌似首发在《财讯》,这个鸟媒体我都没听说过,叫官方?亏您怎么翻出来的,找得到的。
2、作为在国内苦苦挣扎的P民之一,基本上没看到什么冰火两重天,离兲朝这么远,大家都是当看戏好了。兲朝手里捏着大蘑菇和菜花,至于害怕啥么?
3、卡大佐干的得罪兲朝的事情还少么,这么2的人怎么可能是兲朝的朋友的?
4、说回五大难题一文,从P民的角度来看,基本上还是客观的,撑死了带一点点国内视野和意识形态的局限,对一个地方媒体的报道,还想要怎么样?
5、至于过渡委,呵呵呵呵,咱们走着瞧,看看利比亚多久能恢复正常秩序。
5、“血淋淋的卡扎菲警示中东”一文,刊登在财经类网站上的对政治的评论,鬼知道是哪个愤青写的,这您都能拿来当真的话,铁血上很多很好的素材哟。
6、您此文唯一说的靠谱的就是最后一段。
何女士您反共没问题,土共确实有很多问题,大把篓子可以桶。但您要拿这地方媒体/财经媒体上的文章当官方文章,就开始猛批,有什么意思呢?只能忽悠忽悠不追根究底的网络暴民。
兲朝P民最缺乏的就是独立思考和自主判断的能力,而当有天他们学会了的时候,看到的是您这样的片面文章,您觉得谁还会继续相信您以及您背后所代表的那些吗?
DarkNook ,你的眼睛大概选择性失明。这几天你去网站上看看,微博上到处是为卡扎菲死亡叫好声,网民不少在问,什么时候轮到天朝?
再去CCTV节目上看看,真是都在好心地为利比亚人民担心。
翻墙出来,就为说这些个屁话,如果不是那种五毛水军,我还真不相信。
你这头走狗! 中国的媒体哪个不是官方的?你真当别人是白痴!?
“土共确实有很多问题,大把篓子可以桶”–那今后你应多揭露些,不是批评使人进步吗?
你说土共究竟有哪些问题?
别的不说,就说股份制报纸,你办一份我们看看,天朝那份报纸不是官方的背景,你倒是说出来听听。
请你在这里老老实实看看,认认真真的琢磨。什么时候觉得自己的言论不至于让人耻笑,什么时候觉得自己脑浆子的污泥浊水换干净了,再发点让人信服的感言。
黑奴同志,请你回去给共党扎菲带个话,只要他们交枪投降,保他犬命一条,保证不性侵他,保证不屁股插刀。至于你嘛,嘿嘿。。。
你就一个靠吃独裁者排泄物的单细胞生物 你共爹不给你屎吃 你活不到今天 你就那点爬格子的伎俩 水平又臭 你说你除了给你共爹吹拉弹唱 你还能干什么 要钱没你的份 要权你没资格 拿枪不会打仗 手无缚鸡之力 文也不行 武也不行 你还是去坐动车吧 死了还能赚你共爹一笔
我也是湖南人,请“老乡”读文章一定要仔细。何女士评读这文章之前,说了这两篇是“官方”文章吗?然后你自己虚拟一个前提,就这么立论批判,并给她背后指定一个势力。有你这样的人在邵阳,难怪那地方脏得要命。
贵党与政府最近下达的有关卡扎菲宣传规则你知道吗?今后别假装反共,有什么直接了当说好了。别人眼瞎了,也不会将你这种人当作反共人士。
还有,上面两位,特别是攻击邵阳市的那位东城游客,请仔细阅读何女士此文的最后一句话。不然读了文章一点长进都没有,何女士此文真的白写了。
darkdook,单凭你这句"至于过渡委,呵呵呵呵,咱们走着瞧吧",可以断定你不属于人类!
我也是湖南人,何大姐是我最佩服的女性。写的文章有理有据,是刺向专制政府的投枪。湖南还出了一个陈志武。这两个湖南人是湖南的骄傲。
何大姐的文章写得好,中共和卡扎菲是一路货色的,凡有良心的中国人都会唾弃中共法西斯独裁政府。
中国官媒愚弄百姓实在是太恶心了。我注意到,环球时报等中国媒体以“利比亚新政
权或允一夫多妻”为标题煽动不了解利比亚的中国民众敌视推翻卡扎菲独裁政权的
利比亚新政权,称是利比亚社会的退步。可笑的是,在卡扎菲统治之下的利比亚,
一夫多妻制度才真正的是合法的。
下面是卡扎菲利比亚的法律:
law.emory.edu/ifl/legal/libya.htm
Polygamy: permitted with prior judicial permission based on grounds of financial
and physical capacity; written agreement of wife may authorise husband to
marry polygamously or authorisation may be given by court for certain reasons.
根据卡扎菲统治之下的利比亚法律,只要有相应的经济条件,就能娶多妻。 但大老婆的允许“可”授权娶多妻, 但不是必要的。而且只要有钱 ,就算是没有大妻的同意照样可以娶多妻。所以一夫多妻制在卡轧菲的利比亚完全是合法的。
中国官媒的恶心之处是强调宣传利比亚新政权要推行“一夫多妻”制度,却只字不
提卡扎菲时期利比亚一夫多妻制度合法这一事实。弄成“卡扎菲时期男女平等禁止一夫多妻制,而新政权上台后马上复辟恢复一夫多妻制” 这一假象。这就是Propaganda。
法国带头,北约打利比亚,不是为了石油是为了什么,你太低估欧洲人的智力了.或者太高估自己的智力了.伊拉克人民日子好过了吗?利比亚人民的日子会好过吗?都是国际强势集团的棋子,自己国家经济军事不强大永远做不了主,尤其对中国这样的大国,不管谁掌权.
你知道在伊拉克运营的最大外国能源公司是什么吗?不是美国的石油公司,也不是
英国的,而是中国的“中石油”!美国打伊拉克是为了石油?是为了让中国石油公
司占最大利益??简直荒谬!
卡扎菲执政时,西方又不是没有和利比亚做石油生意。相反,“阿拉伯之春前”前
还做的红火异常!卡扎菲的独裁统治反而保障欧洲人在利比亚的石油利益。不仅如
此,卡扎菲还严加看守海岸线防止非洲难民偷渡欧洲,也帮了欧洲人的忙。
卡扎菲的失败,是源于其长期家庭独裁垄断侵吞利比亚巨大国民财富,以此同时国内
失业率却高的惊人,民生艰难,官僚腐败,最后引起民愤一发不可收拾。
卡扎菲的失败源于其长期家庭独裁垄断侵吞利比亚巨大国民财富,这点很不错.法国要打他,当然是为了石油,还有法国在北非的利益,主要不是为了利比亚人民的幸福。
美国人自己都说了伊拉克战争就是为了石油。美国人现在从中东进口的石油少了,他现在主要从加拿大、墨西哥那里挖石油,所以他敢灭利比亚,然后是伊朗。
中国没办法,别的地方不给你石油,所以只好到伊朗、伊拉克等中东国家和非洲去进口,虽然明知道那里世道很不好,很不安全。
在一些“人”眼里就只有石油、利益,没有起码的人性、道义和良知。而专制法西斯一贯以能源、经济利益为假口狗苟蝇营、沆瀣一气、狼狈为奸、相互逢场支持。
何清涟这篇文章写的不错,卡扎菲之死确实牵动了中共的每一个神经。民间和官方的感觉确实很不一样;当然,如果直截了当地把文章作者报纸名称点出来就更好了。
DarkNook你不要美言自己是个“P民”,其实你充其量就是共党的一个屁。
何女士的文章就是好,坚决支持!
只有经历过中共暴政的中国人才能感觉到利比亚人对卡扎菲之死的报复还是仁慈的,中国共产党对中国人民的迫害可以说是骇人听闻,如果不信可以用您手中的鼠标搜索查寻,并且询问60岁以上的老人加以证实,《九评共产党》和《毛泽东鲜为人知的故事》这两部巨著,可以说是共产党和毛泽东的记录档案几乎没有栽脏,中国共产党恶贯满盈所有犯的罪都在那记着呢,世界上每一个独裁政权国家无不是中共的铁杆兄弟,与流氓为伍是中共的本质决定,一丘之貉绝不牵强,因此卡扎菲失国的阴影必然笼罩北京中南海的流氓大亨,可能您是中共政权的利益获得者,不想看到中国人多么仇恨共产党,可是如果一个罪恶集团的的劣迹用罄竹难书来形容,天理法理情理能容吗!?!?——您不害怕吗?
利比亚卡扎菲的覆灭牵动着中共北京的敏感神经、心头笼罩阴影甚至为卡扎菲哭丧一场但绝非到了吃睡不香、胆颤心惊、惊慌失措、惶惶不可终日的地步,他们依然稳坐专制强权法西斯如磐石,因为他们手里掌握、控制着强过卡扎菲千万倍的核武器等现代化军备和军警力量。
我们只恨没有武器,否则我们早就动手了,现在毕竟不是冷兵器时代,棍棒连手枪都斗不过
人活百年,足矣,与其这样耻辱和愤懑的活着,不如起来一搏,或许该子孙后代造就 好的环境
我贊成博主的觀點,中國民眾其實是痛恨共產黨,痛恨社會主義的,但活在共匪的鐵蹄下,更是無奈的。但希望博主能夠把中共和中國區分開來。前者是獨裁政黨,而後者卻包含了中國民眾。
呵呵呵,防火长城今晚突然失效,得以轻松观看我喜欢的博客文章。话说最近好多软件都被墙了,免费VPN也上不去了。
您不要认为共产党离垮台远着呢,如果您如此把自己的利益命运和中共的生死存亡紧紧相连,不烦去中国大陆中共官方网站去看看中国P民怎样仇恨共产党的,尽管大的主流网被中共三方手段把守(网警、网管、5毛)删除、屏蔽、粉饰,根本看不见真实的中国,可是有很多中、小网评论依然能反映出99%的多数中国人对共产党的仇恨,只要中南海和人民日报发表言辞,也是中国P民咒骂最热的靶子,能让人感觉到只要有机会共产党比卡扎菲死的惨,建议您们还是去中国大陆替共产党救火,不过那是图劳的。
此篇文章文字和文笔都很好,佩服佩服.但是利比亚之战明显是法国殖民主义的回光返照,而国内的反对派做了走卒而已.也不要说什么是民主与独裁的斗争,因为民主正在这个世界上消失,包括美国.而中国人,他们大概是没有机会享受到民主了.就算立即在中国推行民主,也已经太迟.
独裁不得人心乃是全球之共识,封网虽能减少知道真相的人数,拖延其灭亡的时日,但最终仍是徒劳的,因为历史的车轮是不可阻挡的!
阅读下来此处发贴者大多比较偏激,包括作者这位女士。国内确实很多问题让人愤慨,但说国民对卡死一片叫好我觉得有点一厢情愿,关我们鸟事,该女士在国内吗?你见到谁在叫好?再说了指望换领导者就天下清明似乎有点天真,最可笑的是认为欧美国家会为了我们p民的福祉卖力那就更傻了。美国总统的观点明确说是政治就是生意。我就很不齿狗屁过渡委员会,只是为了自己的政治利益不惜引入国外列强,这些人打仗会白白出力吗?还不是今后要加倍还钱?这些钱哪里来的,还不是利比亚国家的?用国家的利益换取自己的政治利益的跳梁小丑而已。
政治斗争历来是为政治家服务的,从历史上看那次流血牺牲是为了人民?
zeo 说道:
2011/10/31 上午 12:40
阅读下来此处发贴者大多比较偏激,包括作者这位女士。国内确实很多问题让人愤慨,但说国民对卡死一片叫好我觉得有点一厢情愿,关我们鸟事,该女士在国内吗?你见到谁在叫好?再说了指望换领导者就天下清明似乎有点天真,最可笑的是认为欧美国家会为了我们p民的福祉卖力那就更傻了。美国总统的观点明确说是政治就是生意。我就很不齿狗屁过渡委员会,只是为了自己的政治利益不惜引入国外列强,这些人打仗会白白出力吗?还不是今后要加倍还钱?这些钱哪里来的,还不是利比亚国家的?用国家的利益换取自己的政治利益的跳梁小丑而已。
政治斗争历来是为政治家服务的,从历史上看那次流血牺牲是为了人民?———————“zeo”不知道你是脑残还是别有用心,如此呼悠P民关心政治无用论标准中共5毛,语气和名扬天下中共5毛头子“吴法天”轳出一辙,吴法天5毛忠心耿耿为党冲锋陷阵,现在却被你们党娘没收了祖宅财产,现在正在叫苦连天维权,……被大家讥笑报应,美国总统的观点明确说是政治就是生意,那是为了国家人民的生意,不是你党娘为了无官不贪的生意,中国P民热爱的是美国的社会制度,就如同热爱西方发明的化肥使粮食多收,能让人吃饱,你如此信誓旦旦的质问:“政治斗争历来是为政治家服务的,从历史上看那次流血牺牲是为了人民?”如果你眼睛不瞎的话你应该能看见现在的台湾的民主制度,那就是国民党、辛亥革命的英雄们流血牺牲换来的幸福果实。