These articles themselves are partisan propaganda. How do they go from “the military showed restraint against rioters” and “the CIA supported anti-CCP movements” to “there is no censorship around Tiananmen square in China” and “nobody died through police/military intervention”?
Not saying USA/France government is any better. All governments are bastards, and all trying to conceal their crimes against the people. But chinese government isn’t exactly “soft” either against political activists, eg. from the anti-gentrification movement.
How do they go from “the military showed restraint against rioters” and “the CIA supported anti-CCP movements” to “there is no censorship around Tiananmen square in China” and “nobody died through police/military intervention”?
maybe you should read texts properly instead of skimming through
Show me the pictures of the Tiananmen Square massacre. The pictures of the massacre note. Can’t? But you’ve seen them!
OK, then, next best thing: show me the pictures of a massacre’s aftermath. You know, the dead bodies, the literal rivers of blood that must have been involved, the bullet holes in every building surrounding the square. That kind of thing.
There are pictures… of soldiers lynched and burned by the mob.
And then pictures that could really be from anywhere, could even be movie props for all we know. But they have that 1987 look so everyone accepts them. And then, yes, pictures of wounded protestors. Some seem dead. My issue with those pictures mostly is there’s no backstory (and I don’t speak Mandarin so forget about me tracking them down at the source). The problem to me is not if they were wounded by the police or military (because that was in 1987), the problem to me is that they are always accepted as victims of government repression without any questions. But their status has not been proven, it has only been eagerly inferred.
Chai Ling (one of the organisers) hoping the army kills lots of students: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5__ESiklA1A. She flatly said “I won’t be at the square tomorrow” when asked.
A contingent of CIA-sponsored students (such as Chai Ling) took the helm of the protests and turned them from legitimate grievances to “let’s install a US-comprador regime instead!”. Many protestors actually left the protests and went home when the shift happened, because that is not what they were supporting. Like you suddenly had armed students in the square inciting for revolution. Where did they get their weapons? Where did these students come from? People need to understand students don’t just roll up to the nearest weapons shop and spend all their savings on ARs lol.
This is disingenuous as well. You don’t help against calls of “denialism” by lying.
Armed students? Where? Literally nobody involved—including the Chinese government—has made the claim that the students were armed. The closest they got to carrying arms was wresting bludgeons from riot cops and turning them back: improvised and captured weaponry, in short, while said arms were being used against them.
The workers came with arranged arms. But they weren’t in the square, now, were they? They hit the streets multiple kilometres away armed with improvised weapons and Molotov cocktails.
Streets, dude. Streets. I don’t deny that there was a massacre. The clue is in these words:
Note, I didn’t say there was no massacre on or about June 4, 1989.
See what that says? See? WHERE IS THE FUCKING DENIALISM WHEN I’M EXPLICITLY SAYING I DON’T DENY IT YOU UTTER ILLITERATE!?
My contention is that there was no Tiananmen Square massacre.
Learn to read, please! And then use this newfound skill to READ THE WORDS THAT ARE ACTUALLY PRESENT and not the words that fill your brain after you yanked them out of your asshole.
How far away from Tiananmen Square do you think the massacre happened? And how far away is acceptable for it to be called the Tiananmen Square massacre?
I don’t “think” it happened away from Tiananmen Square. It happened far away. Reality doesn’t work by thought, it works by, well, reality.
Of course you’d have had your answer if you bothered to, you know, read the community you’re stinking up with your ill-conceived what-passes-for-thoughts.
In fact you’d have found this if you’d bothered to do more than demand people feed you like you’re an intellectual toddler: https://lemmy.ml/post/75157/comment/68837
Thousands of people were slaughtered by an oppressive regime, and you’re calling this wiki article propaganda, and advocating for it’s erasure because of a semantic argument. That nobody was actually killed inside the square but rather 7km away.
What does that even mean? When your so-called communist party advocates rule by an elite of bureaucrats/autocrats and these psychopaths decide to kill an entire part of the population due to its ethnicity, being gay, or being a little too communist (i.e. anarchist) for their taste, is that not genocide?
I mean, beyond making an alliance with Hitler, Stalin is well known in former sovietic country as the man who tried to (and did) purge muslim ethnic groups from USSR via mass-killings. So, while i agree this has nothing to do with my definition of communism (as the classless, stateless society), it certainly has a lot to do with the marxist-leninist definition of “dictatorship of the proletariat”.
When your so-called communist party advocates rule by an elite of bureaucrats/autocrats and these psychopaths decide to kill an entire part of the population due to its ethnicity, being gay, or being a little too communist (i.e. anarchist) for their taste, is that not genocide?
genocide = extermination + power. under communist regimes there can only be extermination (tho most of them are still lies)
open the link in this post, it refutes every single “communist genocide” argument
fact is, these “genocides” didn’t happen, and, if they did, it wasn’t done on communism
I’ve seen the tiananmen square pictures, how are you saying that didn’t happen?
If you’re asking in good faith here are some links that’ll hopefully let you filter through facts and propaganda
https://www.mango-press.com/the-tiananmen-square-massacre-the-wests-most-persuasive-most-pervasive-lie/
https://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2012/05/30/lets-talk-about-tiananmen-square-1989/
https://worldaffairs.blog/2019/06/02/tiananmen-square-massacre-facts-fiction-and-propaganda/amp/
These articles themselves are partisan propaganda. How do they go from “the military showed restraint against rioters” and “the CIA supported anti-CCP movements” to “there is no censorship around Tiananmen square in China” and “nobody died through police/military intervention”?
Not saying USA/France government is any better. All governments are bastards, and all trying to conceal their crimes against the people. But chinese government isn’t exactly “soft” either against political activists, eg. from the anti-gentrification movement.
maybe you should read texts properly instead of skimming through
I honestly dont see how these statements contradict each other. And you probably dont speak Chinese, so how would you know about censorship in China?
Show me the pictures of the Tiananmen Square massacre. The pictures of the massacre note. Can’t? But you’ve seen them!
OK, then, next best thing: show me the pictures of a massacre’s aftermath. You know, the dead bodies, the literal rivers of blood that must have been involved, the bullet holes in every building surrounding the square. That kind of thing.
What’s that? You can’t? BUT YOU’VE SEEN THEM!!!
(cough)
There are pictures… of soldiers lynched and burned by the mob.
And then pictures that could really be from anywhere, could even be movie props for all we know. But they have that 1987 look so everyone accepts them. And then, yes, pictures of wounded protestors. Some seem dead. My issue with those pictures mostly is there’s no backstory (and I don’t speak Mandarin so forget about me tracking them down at the source). The problem to me is not if they were wounded by the police or military (because that was in 1987), the problem to me is that they are always accepted as victims of government repression without any questions. But their status has not been proven, it has only been eagerly inferred.
Chai Ling (one of the organisers) hoping the army kills lots of students: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5__ESiklA1A. She flatly said “I won’t be at the square tomorrow” when asked.
A contingent of CIA-sponsored students (such as Chai Ling) took the helm of the protests and turned them from legitimate grievances to “let’s install a US-comprador regime instead!”. Many protestors actually left the protests and went home when the shift happened, because that is not what they were supporting. Like you suddenly had armed students in the square inciting for revolution. Where did they get their weapons? Where did these students come from? People need to understand students don’t just roll up to the nearest weapons shop and spend all their savings on ARs lol.
This is disingenuous as well. You don’t help against calls of “denialism” by lying.
Armed students? Where? Literally nobody involved—including the Chinese government—has made the claim that the students were armed. The closest they got to carrying arms was wresting bludgeons from riot cops and turning them back: improvised and captured weaponry, in short, while said arms were being used against them.
The workers came with arranged arms. But they weren’t in the square, now, were they? They hit the streets multiple kilometres away armed with improvised weapons and Molotov cocktails.
I wish I didn’t see them, but there are streets full of people flattened by tanks =[
http://www.cnd.org/June4th/massacre.html
To end denialism like this is the best reason to keep the article
Streets, dude. Streets. I don’t deny that there was a massacre. The clue is in these words:
See what that says? See? WHERE IS THE FUCKING DENIALISM WHEN I’M EXPLICITLY SAYING I DON’T DENY IT YOU UTTER ILLITERATE!?
My contention is that there was no Tiananmen Square massacre.
Learn to read, please! And then use this newfound skill to READ THE WORDS THAT ARE ACTUALLY PRESENT and not the words that fill your brain after you yanked them out of your asshole.
READ. WHAT’S. ACTUALLY. THERE!
Fucking Hell is talking to Americans draining!
How far away from Tiananmen Square do you think the massacre happened? And how far away is acceptable for it to be called the Tiananmen Square massacre?
I don’t “think” it happened away from Tiananmen Square. It happened far away. Reality doesn’t work by thought, it works by, well, reality.
Of course you’d have had your answer if you bothered to, you know, read the community you’re stinking up with your ill-conceived what-passes-for-thoughts.
In fact you’d have found this if you’d bothered to do more than demand people feed you like you’re an intellectual toddler: https://lemmy.ml/post/75157/comment/68837
Thousands of people were slaughtered by an oppressive regime, and you’re calling this wiki article propaganda, and advocating for it’s erasure because of a semantic argument. That nobody was actually killed inside the square but rather 7km away.
You didn’t fucking read.
I’m through here. Let someone else smash their skull against the thick-as-a-brick wall here.
What does that even mean? When your so-called communist party advocates rule by an elite of bureaucrats/autocrats and these psychopaths decide to kill an entire part of the population due to its ethnicity, being gay, or being a little too communist (i.e. anarchist) for their taste, is that not genocide?
I mean, beyond making an alliance with Hitler, Stalin is well known in former sovietic country as the man who tried to (and did) purge muslim ethnic groups from USSR via mass-killings. So, while i agree this has nothing to do with my definition of communism (as the classless, stateless society), it certainly has a lot to do with the marxist-leninist definition of “dictatorship of the proletariat”.
genocide = extermination + power. under communist regimes there can only be extermination (tho most of them are still lies)
Don’t you think the secret police, the gulags and prisons, and Red Army represent some form of “power”?
no, proletarians have no power in that sense
Hmmm i think we agree that this is not “power” in the sense of “empowerment”. But it’s still a strong power that will crush the population.