I’m tired of people saying that China denies anything happened on that day. Like you said, the reality is worse. The Government admits that there was a protest and the army did indeed put it down forcefully, but they say that it’s because it was turning into a dangerous riot that would have plunged the city into chaos. They said that the protestors were bloodthirsty and wanted to overthrow the Government, and they were the ones who “shot first” (figuratively—guns are banned in China) against the police. They say that the Chinese government respects the people’s right to protest peacefully but only when the protest turned into a riot after and the demonstrators refused all of the Government’s very reasonable concessions that they called in the army.
However, officers or hired thugs in plain clothes infiltrating protests and inciting violence in order to give a reasonable excuse for the military/police at shutting them down is a commonly used and widespread tactic.
So, was it violent protesters or violent military/government staging an act? Well, the track record stands against official powers.
In favour of your argument I will say that violent individuals will almost always take advantage of a protest to lash out selfishly. It is unavoidable. Yet, a government having a one-sided overwhelming force responding to limited civilian violence with even more overbearing violence, the bias it will face in regards to trust will increase exponentially.
I’m tired of people saying that China denies anything happened on that day. Like you said, the reality is worse. The Government admits that there was a protest and the army did indeed put it down forcefully, but they say that it’s because it was turning into a dangerous riot that would have plunged the city into chaos. They said that the protestors were bloodthirsty and wanted to overthrow the Government, and they were the ones who “shot first” (figuratively—guns are banned in China) against the police. They say that the Chinese government respects the people’s right to protest peacefully but only when the protest turned into a riot after and the demonstrators refused all of the Government’s very reasonable concessions that they called in the army.
Believable.
However, officers or hired thugs in plain clothes infiltrating protests and inciting violence in order to give a reasonable excuse for the military/police at shutting them down is a commonly used and widespread tactic. So, was it violent protesters or violent military/government staging an act? Well, the track record stands against official powers.
In favour of your argument I will say that violent individuals will almost always take advantage of a protest to lash out selfishly. It is unavoidable. Yet, a government having a one-sided overwhelming force responding to limited civilian violence with even more overbearing violence, the bias it will face in regards to trust will increase exponentially.