I don’t think that you understand what we are trying to say. This community is for current world news. As in, current articles. An old article being related to current events is not what belongs in worldnews.
There was no Tiananmen Square massacre, but there was a Beijing massacre.
The shorthand we often use of the “Tiananmen Square protests” of 1989 gives the impression that this was just a Beijing issue. It was not.
Protests occurred in almost every city in China (even in a town on the edge of the Gobi desert).
What happened in 1989 was by far the most widespread pro-democracy upheaval in communist China’s history. It was also by far the bloodiest suppression of peaceful dissent.
James Miles is now the Beijing correspondent of The Economist, and author of The Legacy of Tiananmen: China in Disarray (University of Michigan Press, 1996).
Some have found it uncomfortable that all this conforms with what the Chinese government has always claimed, perhaps with a bit of sophistry: that there was no “massacre in Tiananmen Square.”
But there’s no question many people were killed by the army that night around Tiananmen Square, and on the way to it — mostly in the western part of Beijing. Maybe, for some, comfort can be taken in the fact that the government denies that, too.
This story was filed by CBS News correspondent Richard Roth, who was detained by Chinese authorities for 20 hours on June 4, 1989, while covering the Tiananmen Square “crackdown”.
The entire argument is no media personnel saw the events in Tianamen Square, THE SPECIFIC SQUARE, so calling it the Tiananmen Square Massacre is a lie since nobody saw anyone be massacred in THE SPECIFIC SQUARE. But read the accounts yourself, they say absolutely there was a very violent crackdown and many people were killed.
These are links YOU provided and this is all you find on these two links YOU provided. It is so weak flimsy and pathetic. Sure nobody saw a massacre in the square specifically but we know it was a bloody crackdown.
Tiananmen Square only really comes up when propagandized lemmitors bring it up, because it’s been discussed to death already. But we have no problem talking about it any more than the Chinese people or Chinese state does, despite Western propaganda about it being censored in China.
I think old news can become news again when new developments occur.
What I’ll give you is that OP should have included those new developments in the body of the link, so that this conversation wouldn’t have to happen down in the comment section. I don’t think they were wrong to post it without that context, but it would have avoided our bickering.
I don’t think that you understand what we are trying to say. This community is for current world news. As in, current articles. An old article being related to current events is not what belongs in worldnews.
🤷
Help I’m desperately clutching at straws!
What propaganda have I’ve been outed pushing, be specific. Meanwhile, sure let’s talk about your failed color revolution https://redsails.org/another-view-of-tiananmen/
gotta love how upset libs get when exposed to anything outside their bubble
This link he provided uses sources that completely contradict what he is saying check it out it is hilarious.
It quotes these articles, this is also what you find throughout both links he provided.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8057762.stm
The shorthand we often use of the “Tiananmen Square protests” of 1989 gives the impression that this was just a Beijing issue. It was not.
Protests occurred in almost every city in China (even in a town on the edge of the Gobi desert).
What happened in 1989 was by far the most widespread pro-democracy upheaval in communist China’s history. It was also by far the bloodiest suppression of peaceful dissent.
James Miles is now the Beijing correspondent of The Economist, and author of The Legacy of Tiananmen: China in Disarray (University of Michigan Press, 1996).
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/there-was-no-tiananmen-square-massacre/
Some have found it uncomfortable that all this conforms with what the Chinese government has always claimed, perhaps with a bit of sophistry: that there was no “massacre in Tiananmen Square.”
But there’s no question many people were killed by the army that night around Tiananmen Square, and on the way to it — mostly in the western part of Beijing. Maybe, for some, comfort can be taken in the fact that the government denies that, too.
This story was filed by CBS News correspondent Richard Roth, who was detained by Chinese authorities for 20 hours on June 4, 1989, while covering the Tiananmen Square “crackdown”.
The entire argument is no media personnel saw the events in Tianamen Square, THE SPECIFIC SQUARE, so calling it the Tiananmen Square Massacre is a lie since nobody saw anyone be massacred in THE SPECIFIC SQUARE. But read the accounts yourself, they say absolutely there was a very violent crackdown and many people were killed.
These are links YOU provided and this is all you find on these two links YOU provided. It is so weak flimsy and pathetic. Sure nobody saw a massacre in the square specifically but we know it was a bloody crackdown.
Where are Fang Zheng’s legs bro?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fang_Zheng
Your CIA backed color revolution failed bro. Get over it.
Okay find sources because what you offer literally says the opposite. Lol I’d be embarrassed to be you
lol what you should really be embarrassed about is being yourself
so no real sources?
You lost the argument with this one chief
Dudes a literal propaganda bot. Whatever you say
And you’re somehow not? Cmon now.
Tiananmen Square only really comes up when propagandized lemmitors bring it up, because it’s been discussed to death already. But we have no problem talking about it any more than the Chinese people or Chinese state does, despite Western propaganda about it being censored in China.
Why isn’t that in the sidebar, then?
You’re right, but let us use our heads for a moment:
When someone hears worldnews, they think current articles, not potentially outdated articles.
This article belonged on worldnews four months ago.
I think old news can become news again when new developments occur.
What I’ll give you is that OP should have included those new developments in the body of the link, so that this conversation wouldn’t have to happen down in the comment section. I don’t think they were wrong to post it without that context, but it would have avoided our bickering.