While President Trump is being impeached for the second time for “inciting an insurrection at the Capitol that left five people dead”, “deadly attack” is the most commonly used term to describe what happened on Jan. 6 at the Capitol Hill.
目前川普總統因 “煽動國會山暴亂，造成5人死亡 “而正遭受第二次彈劾， “致命攻擊（deadly attack ）”已經成了描述1月6日發生在國會山的事件“標配”詞彙。
Are the allegation and the description true? We need to check some facts first.
那麼以上關於川普總統“煽動暴亂”的指控，及“致命攻擊”這種說法是否準確屬實？我們先來看一看已知的事實。
Facts 事實:
Out of the 5 deaths on that day, only one is related to, or can be described as a “deadly attack”. 35-year-old Ashli Babbitt, a military veteran from San Diego, was shot to death by a Capitol Hill police lieutenant, when she tried to crawl through a broken window into the Speaker’s Lobby.
在當天的5起死亡事件中，只有1起與 “致命攻擊”有關，或者可以被說成是 “致命攻擊”，那就是35歲、來自聖地亞哥的退伍女兵巴比特（Ashli Babbitt）在試圖從一扇已經打破的玻璃門爬進議長大廳時，被國會山的一名警察開槍打死。
So, the “deadly attack” was committed by a police officer against a female civilian who was not armed.
所以，這起 “致命攻擊”是一名警察對一名沒有攜帶武器的女性平民的”致命攻擊”。
All other 4 deaths were the result of medical conditions, including the case of Officer Brian Sicknick, who was widely reported as being beaten with a fire extinguisher. Deaths from medical conditions have nothing to do with a “deadly attack”, nor should they be connected to or described as a “deadly attack”.
所有其他4人的死亡都是由於身體突發疾病造成的，包括那位叫史里克（Brian Snick）的警官的死亡，其實也是突發疾病造成的，雖然許多媒體曾經、並仍然在說，他的頭部曾被滅火器打中。因身體突發疾病導致的死亡與 “致命攻擊 “無關，每天都有很多人突發疾病而死在各種地方和場所，這種死亡根本不應與 “致命攻擊 “聯繫在一起，或被包括在所謂“致命攻擊”中，或被描述為是”致命攻擊”的後果。
According to an analysis by Revolver News and quoted by Tucker Carlson , “there’s no evidence that Brian Sicknick was hit with a fire extinguisher at any point on Jan 6. The officer’s body apparently bore no signs of trauma. In fact, on the night of Jan. 6, long after rioters at the Capitol had been arrested or dispersed, Brian Sicknick texted his brother from his office. According to his brother, Sicknick said he’d been ‘pepper sprayed twice’ but was otherwise ‘in good shape’. Twenty-four hours later, Officer Brian Sicknick was dead.”
福克斯新聞主持人卡爾森（Tucker Carlson）在他的節目中引述Revolver News的分析報導說：”沒有證據表明史里克在1月6日的任何時候被滅火器擊中過。該警官的身體顯然沒有外傷的跡象。事實上，在1月6日晚上，在國會大廈的騷亂者被逮捕或驅散後很久，史里克還從辦公室裡給他兄弟發短信，說他‘挨了兩次胡椒噴霧噴’ ，但除此之外其他方面都‘狀態良好’ 。24小時後，史里克警官去世了。”
Tucker Carlson also said in his show that “the head of the Capitol police union has said he had a stroke. His body was cremated immediately, and authorities have refused to release his autopsy. No one has been charged in his death, and no charges are pending. ”
卡爾森在節目中還說，”國會警察工會的負責人說史里克是中風了。他的屍體被立即火化，當局拒絕公佈他的屍檢結果。沒有人因爲他的死亡而遭到起訴。”
“沒有人因爲他的死亡而遭到起訴”，這句話可以被理解爲，他並不是被別人打死的，否則，打死他的人應該遭到起訴。
另外，這名警察也是川普的支持者。
Therefore, if what happened on Jan 6 can be described as a “deadly attack”, it was an attack on a civilian by a police officer. And this attack has zero connection with President Trump.
因此，如果說1月6日發生的事情可以被說是 “致命攻擊 “的話，那唯一一起因爲“攻擊”而造成的死亡，是一個警察對一位平民的“攻擊”。而這起 “致命攻擊 “與川普總統毫無關係。
Lack of Facts 缺失之事實 :
-
Who is the officer who killed Ashli Babbitt?
1. 殺害退伍女兵巴比特的警察是誰？
-
Who are the people that engaged in violent deeds on that day?
2. 當天從事暴力行為的那些人又是誰？
Questions that Need Answers 待回答的問題:
-
Why would the officer shoot Ashli Babbitt? What are the protocols for the police to shoot at people under that kind of circumstance? If anyone who tries to break a broken window needs to be shot to death, why was only Ashli Babbitt shot while others who did the same thing weren’t shot?
1. 為什麼警察要槍殺巴比特? 在當時那種情況下，警察應不應該開槍的規範是什麼？如果任何試圖從已經打破的玻璃門進入國會的人都需要被當場射殺，為什麼只有巴比特被打死，而其他做同樣事情的人卻沒有被槍擊？
If shooting was not a required action to take, why did that police officer choose to shoot? Did she impose an immediate danger on anybody?
如果開槍不是警察必須採取的行動，那麼，那個警察當時爲何選擇開槍？赤手空拳的巴比特，是否對任何人構成了直接而緊急，且必須打死她才能制止的危險？
2. Who, among all the people that involved in any violent deeds on that day was “incited” by Trump to do what they did? Where is the evidence to show their actions were the direct results of Trump’s “incitement”?
2. 在當天參與暴力行動的所有人中，有誰是直接受到川普的 “煽動 “才採取暴力行動的？有何證據表明他們的行為是川普 “煽動”的直接結果？
If we don’t know who those people that were involved in any violent actions are, and who among them were incited by Trump, how can we conclude that Trump should be held responsible for what those people do?
如果我們不知道那些參與任何暴力行動的人是誰，他們中誰是受川普煽動的，我們怎麼能得出結論說川普應該為這些人的行為負責？
據說已經有100多人因國會山的事件被捕了。我很想知道這些人是誰，有著什麼樣的背景。爲什麼天天在報”致命攻擊”的大媒體，沒有去把這些料給挖出來？應該把這些暴徒好好曝一下光啊，讓他們出來自首，是怎麼受到川普“煽動”的啊。
There are many other questions to ask, such as why didn’t the DC police do anything when authorities already knew days ago that something was being planned? Why wasn’t Trump’s offer to deploy 10,000 National Guard Troops in DC ahead of Jan. 6 accepted? But I don’t want to list them all here.
還有很多其他的疑問，比如當局幾天前就已經知道有人在策劃著要在國會山幹點什麼，為什麼華盛頓特區的警察不採取防範措施？
另外，川普1月6日之前多次提出要在華盛頓部署1萬名國民警衛隊士兵，爲何沒有接受他的建議？等等。
The Perpetrators, The Beneficiaries & The Victims 肇事者、受益者與受害者
Last night I heard this line from a Korean drama: “How to find out the perpetrators of something? Just find out who has benefited from it.”
昨天晚上在一部韓劇中聽到這樣一句臺詞：”如何找出某個事件的肇事者？只要找出誰從中受益就可以了。”
So, to apply this theory, which I think seldom goes wrong, to the event on Jan. 6: Who has benefited, and who has been greatly harmed and become victims?
所以，把這個理論套用到1月6日的事件上，來看看誰是受益者，誰是最大的受害者，那麼誰是肇事者這事兒，不是很明顯嗎？
We don’t need rocket science to figure these out.
America is beyond a joke for many people now because of what it has done and is still doing. It is so sad.
對很多人來說，美國現在已經成了一個笑話了。真可悲。
2/11/2021 *
Truth Saves Lives. Subscribe and support! 真相能救命。請支持！
Donate to me directly 直接捐款：https://donorbox.org/inconvenient-truths-by-jennifer-zeng
Subscribestar 會員頻道： https://bit.ly/3fEzeJB
YouTube 油管：bit.ly/3b87DPj
GoFundme 衆籌：https://bit.ly/2zx6LVw
Patreon 網站：https://bit.ly/3cvBy3H
Paypal 捐款：http://paypal.me/JenniferZeng97
Bitcoin 捐款：bc1qlkkvwyvw96x3xx6jgzkhlnnv0nv3d9vm078vfd
The Facts & Lack of Facts about the “Deadly Attack” on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 關於1月6日美國國會大廈 “致命攻擊 “的事實與事實之缺失
While President Trump is being impeached for the second time for “inciting an insurrection at the Capitol that left five people dead”, “deadly attack” is the most commonly used term to describe what happened on Jan. 6 at the Capitol Hill.
目前川普總統因 “煽動國會山暴亂，造成5人死亡 “而正遭受第二次彈劾， “致命攻擊（deadly attack ）”已經成了描述1月6日發生在國會山的事件“標配”詞彙。
Are the allegation and the description true? We need to check some facts first.
那麼以上關於川普總統“煽動暴亂”的指控，及“致命攻擊”這種說法是否準確屬實？我們先來看一看已知的事實。
Facts 事實:
Out of the 5 deaths on that day, only one is related to, or can be described as a “deadly attack”. 35-year-old Ashli Babbitt, a military veteran from San Diego, was shot to death by a Capitol Hill police lieutenant, when she tried to crawl through a broken window into the Speaker’s Lobby.
在當天的5起死亡事件中，只有1起與 “致命攻擊”有關，或者可以被說成是 “致命攻擊”，那就是35歲、來自聖地亞哥的退伍女兵巴比特（Ashli Babbitt）在試圖從一扇已經打破的玻璃門爬進議長大廳時，被國會山的一名警察開槍打死。
So, the “deadly attack” was committed by a police officer against a female civilian who was not armed.
所以，這起 “致命攻擊”是一名警察對一名沒有攜帶武器的女性平民的”致命攻擊”。
All other 4 deaths were the result of medical conditions, including the case of Officer Brian Sicknick, who was widely reported as being beaten with a fire extinguisher. Deaths from medical conditions have nothing to do with a “deadly attack”, nor should they be connected to or described as a “deadly attack”.
所有其他4人的死亡都是由於身體突發疾病造成的，包括那位叫史里克（Brian Snick）的警官的死亡，其實也是突發疾病造成的，雖然許多媒體曾經、並仍然在說，他的頭部曾被滅火器打中。因身體突發疾病導致的死亡與 “致命攻擊 “無關，每天都有很多人突發疾病而死在各種地方和場所，這種死亡根本不應與 “致命攻擊 “聯繫在一起，或被包括在所謂“致命攻擊”中，或被描述為是”致命攻擊”的後果。
According to an analysis by Revolver News and quoted by Tucker Carlson , “there’s no evidence that Brian Sicknick was hit with a fire extinguisher at any point on Jan 6. The officer’s body apparently bore no signs of trauma. In fact, on the night of Jan. 6, long after rioters at the Capitol had been arrested or dispersed, Brian Sicknick texted his brother from his office. According to his brother, Sicknick said he’d been ‘pepper sprayed twice’ but was otherwise ‘in good shape’. Twenty-four hours later, Officer Brian Sicknick was dead.”
福克斯新聞主持人卡爾森（Tucker Carlson）在他的節目中引述Revolver News的分析報導說：”沒有證據表明史里克在1月6日的任何時候被滅火器擊中過。該警官的身體顯然沒有外傷的跡象。事實上，在1月6日晚上，在國會大廈的騷亂者被逮捕或驅散後很久，史里克還從辦公室裡給他兄弟發短信，說他‘挨了兩次胡椒噴霧噴’ ，但除此之外其他方面都‘狀態良好’ 。24小時後，史里克警官去世了。”
Tucker Carlson also said in his show that “the head of the Capitol police union has said he had a stroke. His body was cremated immediately, and authorities have refused to release his autopsy. No one has been charged in his death, and no charges are pending. ”
卡爾森在節目中還說，”國會警察工會的負責人說史里克是中風了。他的屍體被立即火化，當局拒絕公佈他的屍檢結果。沒有人因爲他的死亡而遭到起訴。”
“沒有人因爲他的死亡而遭到起訴”，這句話可以被理解爲，他並不是被別人打死的，否則，打死他的人應該遭到起訴。
另外，這名警察也是川普的支持者。
Therefore, if what happened on Jan 6 can be described as a “deadly attack”, it was an attack on a civilian by a police officer. And this attack has zero connection with President Trump.
因此，如果說1月6日發生的事情可以被說是 “致命攻擊 “的話，那唯一一起因爲“攻擊”而造成的死亡，是一個警察對一位平民的“攻擊”。而這起 “致命攻擊 “與川普總統毫無關係。
Lack of Facts 缺失之事實 :
Who is the officer who killed Ashli Babbitt?
1. 殺害退伍女兵巴比特的警察是誰？
Who are the people that engaged in violent deeds on that day?
2. 當天從事暴力行為的那些人又是誰？
Questions that Need Answers 待回答的問題:
Why would the officer shoot Ashli Babbitt? What are the protocols for the police to shoot at people under that kind of circumstance? If anyone who tries to break a broken window needs to be shot to death, why was only Ashli Babbitt shot while others who did the same thing weren’t shot?
1. 為什麼警察要槍殺巴比特? 在當時那種情況下，警察應不應該開槍的規範是什麼？如果任何試圖從已經打破的玻璃門進入國會的人都需要被當場射殺，為什麼只有巴比特被打死，而其他做同樣事情的人卻沒有被槍擊？
If shooting was not a required action to take, why did that police officer choose to shoot? Did she impose an immediate danger on anybody?
如果開槍不是警察必須採取的行動，那麼，那個警察當時爲何選擇開槍？赤手空拳的巴比特，是否對任何人構成了直接而緊急，且必須打死她才能制止的危險？
2. Who, among all the people that involved in any violent deeds on that day was “incited” by Trump to do what they did? Where is the evidence to show their actions were the direct results of Trump’s “incitement”?
2. 在當天參與暴力行動的所有人中，有誰是直接受到川普的 “煽動 “才採取暴力行動的？有何證據表明他們的行為是川普 “煽動”的直接結果？
If we don’t know who those people that were involved in any violent actions are, and who among them were incited by Trump, how can we conclude that Trump should be held responsible for what those people do?
如果我們不知道那些參與任何暴力行動的人是誰，他們中誰是受川普煽動的，我們怎麼能得出結論說川普應該為這些人的行為負責？
據說已經有100多人因國會山的事件被捕了。我很想知道這些人是誰，有著什麼樣的背景。爲什麼天天在報”致命攻擊”的大媒體，沒有去把這些料給挖出來？應該把這些暴徒好好曝一下光啊，讓他們出來自首，是怎麼受到川普“煽動”的啊。
There are many other questions to ask, such as why didn’t the DC police do anything when authorities already knew days ago that something was being planned? Why wasn’t Trump’s offer to deploy 10,000 National Guard Troops in DC ahead of Jan. 6 accepted? But I don’t want to list them all here.
還有很多其他的疑問，比如當局幾天前就已經知道有人在策劃著要在國會山幹點什麼，為什麼華盛頓特區的警察不採取防範措施？
另外，川普1月6日之前多次提出要在華盛頓部署1萬名國民警衛隊士兵，爲何沒有接受他的建議？等等。
The Perpetrators, The Beneficiaries & The Victims 肇事者、受益者與受害者
Last night I heard this line from a Korean drama: “How to find out the perpetrators of something? Just find out who has benefited from it.”
昨天晚上在一部韓劇中聽到這樣一句臺詞：”如何找出某個事件的肇事者？只要找出誰從中受益就可以了。”
So, to apply this theory, which I think seldom goes wrong, to the event on Jan. 6: Who has benefited, and who has been greatly harmed and become victims?
所以，把這個理論套用到1月6日的事件上，來看看誰是受益者，誰是最大的受害者，那麼誰是肇事者這事兒，不是很明顯嗎？
We don’t need rocket science to figure these out.
America is beyond a joke for many people now because of what it has done and is still doing. It is so sad.
對很多人來說，美國現在已經成了一個笑話了。真可悲。
2/11/2021 *
Truth Saves Lives. Subscribe and support! 真相能救命。請支持！
Donate to me directly 直接捐款：https://donorbox.org/inconvenient-truths-by-jennifer-zeng
Subscribestar 會員頻道： https://bit.ly/3fEzeJB
YouTube 油管：bit.ly/3b87DPj
GoFundme 衆籌：https://bit.ly/2zx6LVw
Patreon 網站：https://bit.ly/3cvBy3H
Paypal 捐款：http://paypal.me/JenniferZeng97
Bitcoin 捐款：bc1qlkkvwyvw96x3xx6jgzkhlnnv0nv3d9vm078vfd