You're viewing part of a thread.
Can you point out where you’re seeing those things specifically?
The “no civilians were injured” is coming from Awoo pulling quotes out of the links
You linked to Awoo's comment to say that she said (or quoted someone who said?) that there were no civilian injuries. But a ctrl-f of 'civilian' shows the word mentioned nowhere in her comment. In your replies to that comment, where you quote from some of the linked sources only shows cases of people talking about civilian injuries! Please point directly to someone saying, or even implying, that "no civilians were injured." It may be there, and I'll wait for you to actually point it out if it is, but until then, it sure as hell looks to me like you're making shit up and expecting us not to double check.
“it was a violent mob that needed to be stopped by any means” is from Nakoichi.
What Nakoichi said in the comment you linked was:
"Yes but the people killed outside the square were actually armed and had killed police officers already. There were people demonstrating inside the square that did not, for example, lynch and burn police officers alive."
None of that has anything to do with "needing to be stopped by any means." It is simply stating what happened and showing beyond any shadow of doubt that the claim of CPC/PLA/Any Chinese authority conducting a "massacre" but rather instead responding in an entirely understandable and justified way to extreme violence and murder of their comrades.
Both of them are my interpretations of what they said, only slightly exaggerated.
Oooooooh, ok. There it is. You are just making shit up and telling us people are saying things that they aren't actually saying.
First off, that bit isn't from the link unless you're summarizing it for me, in which case thank you.
Yeah, it looks like I pasted a different link than the one with the text I quoted. My bad on what is essentially a typo. This is the link I meant to paste that does correspond to the text I quoted and that was one of the sources already linked above: https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/06/tiananmen-the-empires-big-lie/
But second, that article picks and chooses what information it wants from its sources even if the sources overall contradict each other. It uses a wikileaks source from earlier to say there were no deaths at the monument, but later uses a declassified document to confirm the death toll that says "TROOPS BACKED BY TANKS AND ARMORED PERSONNEL CARRIERS BATTLED CROWDS 0F CIVILIANS FOR SEVEN HOURS BEFORE REACHING THE SQUARE SHORTLY BEFORE DAWN TODAY BEIJING TlME . STUDENT DEMONSTRATORS BEGAN TO LEAVE TIANANMAN BEFORE THE TROOPS MOVED IN; TROOPS OPENED FlRE ON THOSE WHO REMAINED".
There is no contradiction there. Opening fire on the remaining students does not mean that students were killed at the monument. But all of that is immaterial anyway. It's a fucking nitpick. Like you liberals will accuse us of nitpicking about "no actual deaths in the Square" because they happened exclusively (or almost exclusively) in other areas. And as I said, the reason that is singled out is because of the way the false narrative is built around the square itself. It would be an irrelevant detail whether people were killed there or not, were it not for the fact that the picture that anti-Sino western narrative deliberately paints of a massacre that didn't happen, is centered around and built upon those details. But in this case, you really are just saying "nu uh! I caught you in a contradiction because one source said people died in this spot and another says they didn't!" which first of all, doesn't even matter to the context we're providing here that... again... there was no "massacre," and secondly was something I already addressed in my previous comment where I specifically mentioned that contradictions in the details of first hand accounts does mean there is some ambiguity around those specific details. Provide us with something that isn't just a detail that is ultimately inconsequential and that has nothing to do with the invalidity of the "massacre narrative."
As for your other "gotcha," there are discrepancies in the exact number of deaths, which no one here has denied and again, I addressed in my last comment where I said: "In the few instances where there may be contradictory first hand accounts (and mostly, the accounts are not contradictory but rather corroborate each other) there may be some ambiguity." It's funny how you seemed to have latched onto trying to find those ambiguities, but totally ignored the whole reason I said that. Once again, those ambiguities only show us that even where things are uncertain and discrepancies in first-hand accounts exist, they come nowhere near to the claims of the massacre narrative, in this case the blatantly spurious death toll of many thousands. It's almost like no matter which details from first-hand accounts you choose to go with, all of them discount the bullshit that the US State Department would like us to believe about the evil See See Pee via their PLA soldier-goons gunned down gorillions of innocent students and ran over poor Tank Man. (The student thing is especially ironic, given the militarized police crackdown students in the US are right now having to face while they protest a literal genocide the US is funding and helping to perpetrate, but that is obviously for another thread).
It goes to great lengths to describe the student's movement and how barely any students were killed, but doesn't dwell too much on who was killed, and what their motivations might have been, why they were so willing to set fire to vehicles and put their lives on the line.
Well, then keep reading the sources that have been generously provided by @Awoo@hexbear.net and others and maybe even do some of your own research. You may even be shocked to learn how many of those student were protesting the liberalizing of the economy and were against the increasing influence of capital, wanting to remain ideologically and economically socialist. But I'm getting tired of answering your homework questions for you. I've got my own work to do, good night/day/whatever.
Oooooooh, ok. There it is. You are just making shit up and telling us people are saying things that they aren’t actually saying.
Are you just going line by line and didn't want to waste your effort on the first two paragraphs you wrote?
It’s almost like no matter which details from first-hand accounts you choose to go with
Some have found it uncomfortable that all this conforms with what the Chinese government has always claimed, perhaps with a bit of sophistry: that there was no "massacre in Tiananmen Square."
But there's no question many people were killed by the army that night around Tiananmen Square, and on the way to it — mostly in the western part of Beijing. Maybe, for some, comfort can be taken in the fact that the government denies that, too. CBS News
This reporter and many other witnesses saw troops shoot and kill people before dawn on June 4. But these shootings occurred in a different place from that described in the Wen Wei Po article and in somewhat different circumstances. [...] Troops fired on civilians in many parts of the city, but the shooting was concentrated along the Avenue of Eternal Peace, or Changan Avenue, which runs on the north side of the square. There was heavy shooting in the Muxidi district to the west of Tiananmen Square, and there were also many casualties along the Avenue of Eternal Peace to the immediate east of the square, as well as on streets to the south of the square. NY Times
As to body count: I saw several people, young men, lying on flatbed tricycles being carried away from the square. They were inert and covered in blood. Dead or wounded, I have no idea. On the afternoon of June 4, I saw people fall on Changan Avenue as troops opened fire on them. I have no idea if they were wounded, killed or simply fainting.
How many people died that night in Beijing? What was the price of the years of superficial political stability that followed?
Most of the killing did not take place on or near the Square, that is clear. The official line, first espoused by Communist Party propaganda guru Yuan Mu a couple of nights later on national television, was that 23 people had died on the night of June 3/4. It was ludicrous. Nobody who was in Beijing at that time believed it.
In the weeks that followed, Amnesty International did the most thorough survey of the Tiananmen casualty toll. They spoke to everyone who could help build the picture. They questioned me at length in Tokyo, whwre In was already staying in a hotel prior to a move to Hong Kong to become Asian News Editor (a career boost from Tiananmen, perhaps?). Their report estimated 3,000 dead, with most of the killing taking place in the Muxidi district of western Beijing, where outraged Beijing residents — not students — tried to stop the army from entering their city. That number seems a bit high to me, but who knows? If I had to make a wild stab, from what I know and felt, I’d say several hundred were killed, but I have no proof of any number. Until the archives are opened in China’s next era and we can see the truth, surely recorded there somewhere, Amnesty’s 3,000 is the best outside estimate we have. REUTERS: Graham Earnshaw
ALTHOUGH HE DID NOT ACTUALLY WITNESS ANY LARGE SCALE SHOOTINGS ON THE SQUARE PROPER, GALLO SAW MANY CASUALTIES BROUGHT INTO THE SQUARE AND DID NOT DOUBT THAT HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE IN BEIJING WERE KILLED BY THE ARMY ON JUNE 3 AND 4. A Wikileaks cable
those ambiguities only show us that even where things are uncertain and discrepancies in first-hand accounts exist, they come nowhere near to the claims of the massacre narrative
Apparently I read half a dozen of the wrong first hand accounts.
You may even be shocked to learn how many of those student were protesting the liberalizing of the economy
I really don't care about this, the students weren't the ones killed for the most part. They're basically irrelevant to the conversation, aren't they?
there are discrepancies in the exact number of deaths, which no one here has denied
Right now the biggest discrancy I'm seeing is that most of the people here want to tell me that almost half of the people killed were state employees, but that red sails articlesays the official number is closer to 10%. That, and the fact that there really is no official number because China doesn't talk about it and doesn't want anyone else to either.
But I’m getting tired of answering your homework questions for you.
You'd think that after a few decades someone would have done that homework and posted it online somewhere. But I guess it's everyone's responsibility to become an amateur historian to figure it out themselves.
You'd think that after a few decades someone would have done that homework and posted it online somewhere. But I guess it's everyone's responsibility to become an amateur historian to figure it out themselves.
It has, but every time a liberal decides they want to dissect it they latch onto some irrelevant distinction without a difference pretends they just don't understand what's being asserted.
QuietCupcake is affirming the casualties you're pointing to in your pullquotes, but is arguing that because most did not occur in the square itself as described in the westernized accounting of the event and because the violent response started when protestors assaulted and killed several officers, the label of a 'massacre' is an intentionally misleading description that ignores what actually happened. There being a couple hundred casualties doesn't make the event a 'massacre' and honestly I think you know this. Given that you haven't defended the term but have only complained about discrepancies in first-hand accounting makes me think you know it's an indefensible description.
Right now the biggest discrancy[sic] I'm seeing is that most of the people here want to tell me that almost half of the people killed were state employees, but that red sails articlesays the official number is closer to 10%.
Oh look, you did the thing QuietCupcake was pointing out you were doing right after he pointed it out
As for your other "gotcha," there are discrepancies in the exact number of deaths, which no one here has denied and again, I addressed in my last comment where I said: "In the few instances where there may be contradictory first hand accounts (and mostly, the accounts are not contradictory but rather corroborate each other) there may be some ambiguity." It's funny how you seemed to have latched onto trying to find those ambiguities, but totally ignored the whole reason I said that.
'I'm just trying to get answers so I can understand.' Bullshit. You're farming for vague details so that you can dismiss the broader point being made and keep your a-historical and politically-motivated description that was suggested to you from decades of red-scare propaganda.
It has, but every time a liberal decides they want to dissect it they latch onto some irrelevant distinction without a difference pretends they just don’t understand what’s being asserted.
So why weren't those linked? Why do I need to read 5 articles that say there was a massacre, just around the square and not in it, written by or about people who were actually there, just to get to a blog post that links those same articles and selectively pulls quotes to try and convince me that there wasn't a massacre?
There being a couple hundred casualties doesn’t make the event a ‘massacre’ and honestly I think you know this. Given that you haven’t defended the term but have only complained about discrepancies in first-hand accounting makes me think you know it’s an indefensible description.
If January 6th ended with the federal government sending in tanks and hundreds dead, but everything else about it stayed about the same, I would still call it a massacre, or at the very least understand why others would.
Oh look, you did the thing QuietCupcake was pointing out you were doing right after he pointed it out
That, and the fact that there really is no official number because China doesn’t talk about it and doesn’t want anyone else to either.
And you ignored the second point I made, that we really can't know too many details about what happened. And yet everyone's so certain they know the full story, and it just so happens to align with what the government is[n't] saying.
‘I’m just trying to get answers so I can understand.’ Bullshit. You’re farming for vague details so that you can dismiss the broader point being made and keep your a-historical and politically-motivated description that was suggested to you from decades of red-scare propaganda.
After having read the articles, I'm more convinced now that a massacre did happen, it just wasn't in the square and mostly didn't involve students. Yet everyone here seems to want to say that there was no massacre at all, it was a government declaring martial law and putting down a violent rebellion with overwhelming force. I'm not sure that's much better, but whatever.
I'm not sure that's much better, but whatever.
Thank you for conceding.
It's so funny that this person has kept going at this for nearly two days now while I've just been vibing at the karaoke bar the last two nights.
