Chicago

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] QuietCupcake@hexbear.net 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

And there were many soldiers who were also killed as well, the first of which were not even armed but were lynched. There was absolutely fighting in the streets in the surrounding area, and no one denies that people did die. But it was a mutually armed struggle, not a massacre. Calling it a massacre distorts the reality and paints a distorted picture that is beneficial to the west and especially the current anti-China narrative.

The fighting I mentioned above was also heavily instigated and pushed to happen by westerners with a vested interest in harming China who were there to rile up protesters and encourage them to do violence, but then left in helicopters when fighting did start. Some of these instigators have openly admitted this and now live happily in the US. It was not a "massacre."

Come on.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] ZWQbpkzl@hexbear.net 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

Then post articles that say that and not articles that refute your own point. Otherwise you're just being pedantic that no one was killed within the square itself.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] QuietCupcake@hexbear.net 3 points 2 years ago

It was not a "massacre."

Then post articles that say that and not articles that refute your own point.

picard Even the title of the first article I posted is "There Was No 'Tiananmen Square Massacre'" It's in the url for chrissakes. This is beyond a failure of reading comprehension, it's a failure to even look at words.

It was not. a. massacre. It is not at all pedantic to point this fact out. Especially when people, following a blatantly propagandist narrative line, incorrectly call it that.

My choosing those two sources specifically among the thousands of others that was to point out how ridiculous it is to ban someone for "denying a massacre" when even mainstream western news sources (in addition to the BBC as was mentioned in the comment that caught that user the ban lol), including one of the most famous mouthpieces for the U.S. government's foreign policy, likewise "deny" that it was a massacre and likewise would have been banned according to the silly mod's standards. Those articles did not at all refute my point, they clearly made it, as should be obvious to anyone able to follow this thread.