180
New book reveals Tiananmen square massacre, others fabricated by US (english.almayadeen.net)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/genzedong@lemmygrad.ml
445 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 71 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (6 children)

To deny the events that unfolded at Tiananmen Square is like denying that humans have been to the moon. It’s an unfounded, in fact, disprovable conspiracy theory.

So prove it to us then. All you're doing right now is scolding us for being insane conspiracy theorists. I've never seen any evidence that anything happened at tiananmen square. Reports from people who were actually there all say that there was no massacre

The US has a very long history of lying about its enemies. There are plenty of declassified CIA docs that talk about what lies to tell the media. Why is this one different?

Edit: also, see pen names. Isn't it a little hypocritical to call us conspiracy theorists when you come to the conclusion that the book was lies written by China or North Korea because you can't find any information about the author?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] -30 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    I can’t prove it to you, I just use my skills at googling “A B Abrams” to conclude that this is untrustworthy. I also can’t prove that the moon landing happened or that matter is made of atoms, doesn’t mean they are false.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 60 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    See my edit. But here's the thing. We have video of the moon landing and rocks from the actual moon. That's solid evidence. We have plenty of evidence of the atom existing, because half our tech wouldn't work if they didn't exist.

    Where is the evidence of a massacre at tiananmen square? Please read the links I gave you.

    Edit: please remember, you said that this was an easily disprovable conspiracy theory.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago*

    To add to WhatWouldKarlDo's posts, which provided credible counter-evidence (A CBS reporter on location, and a Latin American diplomat's leaked eyewitness account), I want to further emphasise that using a search engine to assess credibility and provide ethos isn't a strong argument. If I search your username, and if you search mine, neither of us will show up as a real person and both our histories will show we reply to political topics. Should we therefore conclude we're both just writing propaganda, and further assume that makes it false?

    We're writing opinions or analyses, and hopefully, substantiating them with evidence. And surely the book is doing the same.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent