• Alaskaball [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    CBS NEWS: “We saw no bodies, injured people, ambulances or medical personnel — in short, nothing to even suggest, let alone prove, that a “massacre” had occurred in [Tiananmen Square]”

    BBC NEWS: “I was one of the foreign journalists who witnessed the events that night. There was no massacre on Tiananmen Square”

    NY TIMES: In June 13, 1989, NY Times reporter Nicholas Kristof – who was in Beijing at that time – wrote, “State television has even shown film of students marching peacefully away from the [Tiananmen] square shortly after dawn as proof that they [protesters] were not slaughtered.” In that article, he also debunked an unidentified student protester who had claimed in a sensational article that Chinese soldiers with machine guns simply mowed down peaceful protesters in Tiananmen Square.

    REUTERS: Graham Earnshaw was in the Tiananmen Square on the night of June 3. He didn’t leave the square until the morning of June 4th. He wrote in his memoir that the military came, negotiated with the students and made everyone (including himself) leave peacefully; and that nobody died in the square.

    200-300 people died in clashes in various parts of Beijing, around June 4 — and about half of those who died were soldiers and cops..

    A Wikileaks cable from the US Embassy in Beijing (sent in July 1989) also reveals the eyewitness accounts of a Latin American diplomat and his wife: “They were able to enter and leave the [Tiananmen] square several times and were not harassed by troops. Remaining with students … until the final withdrawal, the diplomat said there were no mass shootings in the square or the monument.”

    Numerous military buses, trucks, armored vehicles, and tanks being burned by the “peaceful” protesters. Sometimes the soldiers were allowed to escape, and sometimes they were brutally killed by the protesters. Numerous protesters were armed with Molotov cocktails and even guns.

    Wall Street Journal: In an article from June 5, 1989, the Wall Street Journal described some of this violence: “Dozens of soldiers were pulled from trucks, severely beaten and left for dead. At an intersection west of the square, the body of a young soldier, who had been beaten to death, was stripped naked and hung from the side of a bus.”

    The official report of the Chinese government from 1989 (translated here) shows that more than 1000 military and police vehicles were burned by rioters. And 200+ soldiers and policemen were murdered. Just imagine how much restraint the military and the police had shown.

    Wait, how could the protesters kill so many soldiers? Because, until the very end, Chinese soldiers were unarmed. Most of the times, they didn’t even have helmets or batons.

    What exactly happened in Beijing in 1989 that lead to this bloody affair?

    The answer lies with two key figures: General Secretary Hu Yaobang, and Ambassador James Lilley.

    Hu Yaobang was a member of the communist party of China and was one of the three major rightist-reformers that set China on the path its on today, the other two being Zhao Ziyang, and Deng Xiaoping respectively. Hu Yaobang as a reformer was also a spokesman for the intelligentsia and by the end of his life was well-beloved by the youth of China (we’re talking below 30 here, folks) therefore when he passed away the youth of China organized public grieving events with the largest occurring in Beijing. This is to say if Hu didn’t die from old age that year, none of this would’ve happened that year. This is to also say this event had nothing to do with “freedom” or “democracy” or whatever pigshit your favorite rush limburger propagandist spoon feeds you, it was a funeral service that was hijacked to unseat the Chinese government - which so coincidentally is a speciality of the agency the second person we’re talking about.

    Ambassador James Lilley, the son of an american expat oil executive for Standard Oil, was a CIA agent operating in east Asia from 1951 to 1981 with little officially known about him (I know for a fact he’s fucked around Korea and Laos, so it’s not a stretch to say he’s likely been involved with every conflict that occured during his official career). In his “post” CIA career he’s acted as a diplomatic liason to the provice of Taiwan, a teacher to future state department ghouls, and “helped” South Korea end its military dicatorship by helping the military win the election “democratically”, and abruptly five days after the death of General Secretary Hu Yaobang James Lilley was appointed as the US Ambassador to China by also former CIA ghoul and president of the United States George H. W. Bush. What an astounding coincidence.

    In an article from Vancouver Sun (17 Sep 1992) described the role of the CIA: “The Central Intelligence Agency had sources among [Tiananmen Square] protesters” … and “For months before [the protests], the CIA had been helping student activists form the anti-government movement.”

  • Samsy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    The US about indigenous Americans.

    Oh wait, they made hundreds of movies about killing them.

    • kfc [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      That really is one of the most absurd things about the American Empire. They’ll come and destroy your people, taint and corrupt your land with bones and blood, bomb you back into the stone age, and then make a trillion dollar budget film about how it made them feel sad. The othering is so powerful that emotions only exist within the walls of capital

    • littlecolt@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Smooth-brained western Chinese apologists is not what I was expecting from the future of the internet even 5 years ago. Our atrocities are totally cool, eh? Nice.

      • FuckyWucky [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        yeah, next the internet will be defending Iraqi incubator babies or Saddam’s people-shredder.

        also, very rude of you to assume im a mayo western cracker.

      • Alaskaball [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        What is a western China? There’s only one China.

        If you try act like a redditor and go “its what i call taiwan” then you’re literally bumbling around like a drunken dipshit who insists calling the United States “Northern Florida”. Although if we’re to make more accurate historical inference, it would be apt to say you’re the equivalent of those “The South Shall Rise Again” cross-burning confederate dipshits that never shut up about the massive L you took

        • They mean Chinese apologists from the west.

          I for one am not apologizing for much of anything really. Mistakes have been made but the party has grown from that and critiques those. None of these are what these anti-chinese people are saying though

    • FuckyWucky [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      what do you mean 300 deaths isn’t in any way comparable to thousands/millions of deaths during the Holocaust, Aremnian genocide, Bengal famine, Operation Condor or Japanese occupation?

      • 2Password2Remember [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        yeah buddy, ya got me. the cia’s attempt to overthrow the communist party of China failed, but succeeded in getting a few hundred people killed. not exactly the Holocaust libs love to claim it was

        Death to America

          • Carcosa@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Consider the hypothetical, Texas has decided to secede and has had a majority of the population vote on a referendum to do so. Rather than becoming independent they wish to join Mexico, Mexico agrees as there is a large portion of Texas that speaks Spanish and there is a historical precedent of Mexico owning that territory.

            The rest of the United States doesn’t want this and considers this illegal, a nationalist division of the U.S military decides to engage in sustained artillery bombardment of the cities: Dallas, Austin, and Houston.

            Mexico seeing the devastation of people now considered Mexican organizes two separate talks to try and work out some sort of cease fire and pathway forward that respects the will of the people. The nationalist division pays no mind to any sort of agreement and continues the bombardment, Mexico decides that enough is enough and sends its military in to secure Texas as well as destroy the nationalist division.

            In this analogy, the United States is Ukraine, Texas is the Donbass, and Mexico is Russia.

            Sadly war is hell, if only the peace talks weren’t sabotaged by Boris Johnson otherwise the Russia-Ukraine war would be over.

    • zephyreks@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Hundreds, thousands, millions. It’s all the same because people died and the people that died weren’t white.

  • ThenThreeMore@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    The Australian’s about their treatment of aborigines first nation Australians

    The Irish about mother and baby homes.

    China about Uyghurs

    • Gorilladrums@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Or the invasion of Vietnam… Or the annexation of Tibet… Or the bullying of Southeast Asian countries… Or the great leap forward… Or the communist land reforms… Or the anti counterrevolutionary campaigns

      The CCP leaves you no end of really good options to pick here.

  • Gorilladrums@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Marxist regimes tend be the most murderous and most sensitive. The CCP literally murdered tens of millions of people and they’re banning clothes “that hurt China’s feelings” (actual quote)

    • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Let us look at a specific example. A claim like “There’s cultural genocide of Uyghurs in Xinjiang” is simply unreal to most Westerners, close to pure gibberish. The words really refer to existing entities and geographies, but Westerners aren’t familiar with them. The actual content of the utterance as it spills out is no more complex or nuanced than “China Bad,” and the elementary mistakes people make when they write out statements of “solidarity” make that much clear. This is not a complaint that these people have not studied China enough — there’s no reason to expect them to study China, and retrospectively I think to some extent it was a mistake to personally have spent so much time trying to teach them. It’s instead an acknowledgment that they are eagerly wielding the accusation like a club, that they are in reality unconcerned with its truth-content, because it serves a social purpose.

      What is this social purpose? Westerners want to believe that other places are worse off, exactly how Americans and Canadians perennially flatter themselves by attacking each others’ decaying health-care systems, or how a divorcee might fantasize that their ex-lover’s blooming love-life is secretly miserable. This kind of “crab mentality” is actually a sophisticated coping mechanism suitable for an environment in which no other course of action seems viable. Cognitive dissonance, the kind that eventually spurs one into becoming intolerant of the status quo and into action, is initially unpleasant and scary for everybody. In this way, we can begin to understand the benefit that “victims” of propaganda derive from carelessly “spreading awareness.” Their efforts feed an ambient propaganda haze of controversy and scandal and wariness that suffocates any painful optimism (or jealousy) and ensuing sense of duty one might otherwise feel from a casual glance at the amazing things happening elsewhere. People aren’t “falling” for atrocity propaganda; they’re eagerly seeking it out, like a soothing balm.

      https://redsails.org/masses-elites-and-rebels/

      • Gorilladrums@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        A whole lot of words to say very little. No, people believe evidence. Evidence shows that the Chinese government is in fact committing a cultural genocide. From satellite imagery, to official CCP documents to thousands of victim testimonies (which all align btw) to pictures and videos of the camps, of cultural sites being demolished or converted to showing the CCP’s forces intimidating people. It’s indisputable. The only people who cry, lie, and deny that the CCP’s actions are brain dead tankies like you and the CCP itself. There’s a reason why the CCP refused to allow the UN to conduct an independent investigation. There’s a reason why the CCP bans foreign journalists from visiting Xinjiang. There’s a reason why they are pumping so much fake propaganda to try and deny it. They know it’s happening, everybody knows it’s happen.

        You’re a brain damaged tankie. I know you don’t care about facts and I know you’re too willfully ignorant to accept any evidence. My point is just to demonstrate that the propaganda you speak of is being chugged by the likes of you, not the people you accuse.

    • ProxyTheAwesome [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      There’s a difference between quickly suppressing a color revolt that is killing soldiers vs. invasions and coups that kill and displace millions of people. If Tiananmen revolt had spread or succeeded then a LOT more people would have died, and China would now be a western puppet instead of a sovereign nation.

        • ProxyTheAwesome [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          They killed dozens of unarmed soldiers, hanging them by their necks and immolating their corpses. Many of the deaths were done by the mob and they started the lethal violence. They had hundreds of guns out of nowhere, likely supplied by the CIA. Good riddance to these fascist, west-collaborating “students” and the dupes who followed them.

          Liberals always handwring at their enemies suppressing internal problems with unsophisticated violence, but that’s often the only tool these nations have to sustain their own existence. They don’t have sophisticated surveillance deep states with media narrative control, just simple brute force. It’s why Liberals were aghast at “Assad using barrel-bombs on his own population” - the preferred method is to destroy street movements via a complex suite of spying, targeted media narratives, sheepdogging, hidden plain-clothes operatives, targeted assassinations of leadership like how Ferguson and the 2020 riots were handled. Assad had one button to have his nation continue to exist, and it was “drop the barrel bombs on the jihadists hiding in apartment complexes” so he pressed it. That makes him a giant villain to Liberals, despite their own funding of jihadists being the very reason he had to push that button.

          China at the time of Tiananmen was an unsophisticated state in its suppression capabilities. It had one button to deal with the revolt and continue to exist. I don’t believe it was a mistake for them to push it. You can contrast this to how the Hong Kong colonialist petty bourgie revolt was squashed, with 0 deaths. China would obviously prefer 0 deaths, they just didn’t have the capabilities at the time.

          • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            This isn’t accurate at all. The fighting happened when would-be insurgents ambushed pla troops. The pla had unarmed soldiers in the square for a long time. And i mean really unarmed. No helmets, no shields, no batons, no tear gas. When things finally touched off with the cia-backed "pro democracy) faction that was a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the people involved the pla ordered everyone out of the square and everyone left. That was it. When the cia backed wannabe insurgents started attacking the pla everyone was ordered to leave and they left. They didn’t do any brutal state repression. The cpc was in an extremely awkward position bc the vast majority of people involved in the June 4th incident were protesting against Dengist market liberalization, asking for a return to a more socialist economy. Others were protesting the restrictive social norms of contemporary China, arguing that the restrictive social norms were anti-communsit and that people should have more freedom to do simple stuff like publicly date and be publicly affectionate.

            Ultimately a big part of the reason there was little reprisal is bc the cpc couldn’t crack down on pro-socialist protestors, and because in the end the whole thing ended mostly peacefully. The narrative around it is so utterly twisted and distorted. And if you ask people in China about it they don’t understand why westerners think it’s important. It’s just a minor incident in history from a long time ago.

    • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      It’s almost like

      Standard issue Reddit format opener is already a bad start.

      every government commits atrocities at some point or another

      What is the point of such a claim? Is the implication that all governments are equally bad? That is both lazy and absurd. Is this some veiled libertarian pitch in favor of ostensibly less government, except still a government and less accountable?

      • OceanSoap@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Reading comprehension. Learn it. You’ve read a basic statement and put a meaning to it so you can fight someone on the internet. Never said anything about how equal the atrocities were.

        • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Reading comprehension. Learn it.

          Is it even possible for you to reply without coming across as smug and condescending? smuglord

          Never said anything about how equal the atrocities were.

          Of course you didn’t. You used the wormy Reddit plausible-deniability format where you imply your position without actually committing to it.

      • Gorilladrums@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        No, it’s an acknowledgement that pointing out random countries and saying that they committed atrocities with implication of exclusivity is both false and meaningless. For example, countries that had Marxism stain their histories, have seen some of the worst atrocities ever. Marxist regimes are some of the most murderous, extreme, and destructive in human history. It is fair and valid to acknowledge, spread awareness, and learn about these atrocities as well criticize the individuals and regimes responsible, but at the same time time it is stupid and wrong to try and claim that the people of these nations are responsible for the atrocities of their countrymen, past or present, or that their country is in a lesser tier on the morality scale because of the Marxist regimes.