You do know that the pictures support what he said right? There’s pictures of dead soldiers because they weren’t given ammo when marching into the city. Once they started getting killed, they gave them ammo and they just started shooting everybody. Before then the protesters smashed their heads, stripped them, and burned them.
The ones who stayed in the square were mostly the peaceful hunger strikers and not the fighters so the square itself was cleared without much trouble compared to the march into the city.
Armed troops and tanks made their way to the square on the night of June 3 and into the morning hours of June 4. They soon shot those who stood in their way and crushed those who wouldn’t move out of it.
Once again, that’s not out of line with what he and I said. There were barricades and fighting in the streets of Beijing and the army killed whoever got in their way to the square, but the people occupying the square were negotiated with and peacefully dispersed. They then once again took all the ammo from the soldiers.
I don’t understand why you think it’s important to insist that nothing happened precisely inside Tiananmen Square, but you are perfectly happy for a massacre to have occurred in, say, Changan Avenue.
Anyway, to respond to the original challenge rather than argue your questionable morals.
Because it’s what happened. It’s not a point of morals or anything else. The other poster is making a value argument that I don’t particularly agree with, but when it comes to the reality of what happened, they’re grounded. Go read the Wikipedia article.
A handful of protesters killing cops and soldiers does not justify indiscriminate murder, particularly when you consider it the government’s responsibility to make sure protesters never get to the point that they feel the need to employ violence to achieve their aims. I didn’t think I needed to spell that out.
Only when someone denies the massacre do I link to these horrific NSFL photos.
You do know that the pictures support what he said right? There’s pictures of dead soldiers because they weren’t given ammo when marching into the city. Once they started getting killed, they gave them ammo and they just started shooting everybody. Before then the protesters smashed their heads, stripped them, and burned them.
The ones who stayed in the square were mostly the peaceful hunger strikers and not the fighters so the square itself was cleared without much trouble compared to the march into the city.
Once again, that’s not out of line with what he and I said. There were barricades and fighting in the streets of Beijing and the army killed whoever got in their way to the square, but the people occupying the square were negotiated with and peacefully dispersed. They then once again took all the ammo from the soldiers.
I don’t understand why you think it’s important to insist that nothing happened precisely inside Tiananmen Square, but you are perfectly happy for a massacre to have occurred in, say, Changan Avenue.
Anyway, to respond to the original challenge rather than argue your questionable morals.
A tank set ablaze by protesters burns in Tiananmen Square on June 3.
A Chinese armored personnel carrier, with crushed bicycles stuck to its side, sits in Tiananmen Square on June 4.
Because it’s what happened. It’s not a point of morals or anything else. The other poster is making a value argument that I don’t particularly agree with, but when it comes to the reality of what happened, they’re grounded. Go read the Wikipedia article.
The other poster is trying to claim nothing bad happened inside Tiananmen Square itself, and it was the protestors that were the real aggressors.
This is bullshit.
The situation escalated because reserves from outside Beijing were drafted in, who had no friends or relatives protesting.
A handful of protesters killing cops and soldiers does not justify indiscriminate murder, particularly when you consider it the government’s responsibility to make sure protesters never get to the point that they feel the need to employ violence to achieve their aims. I didn’t think I needed to spell that out.
I agree with this statement, but it’s very different from the “defence of the Chinese narrative, westerners are wrong” ship you sailed in on.