Wikileaks Cables Say No Bloodshed Inside Tiananmen Square

netchaos writes "Secret cables from the United States embassy in Beijing have shown there was no bloodshed inside Tiananmen Square when China put down student pro-democracy demonstrations 22 years ago." Which is not to say that everything was flowers and wine: "Instead, the cables show that Chinese soldiers opened fire on protesters outside the centre of Beijing, as they fought their way towards the square from the west of the city."

Comments

No big secret here

[Senes]

They waited until people were located outside the square itself before the slaughter began.

Re:No big secret here

[macshit]

... and remember, Li Peng's still alive. There's still time for a trial in the Hague...

Oh, haha, I forgot, he has power and influence.

Re:No big secret here

[dAzED1]

not a "big secret?" Everything I've ever read about it was that students were run over by tanks, inside the square. That's pretty contrary to this.

Re:No big secret here

[sakdoctor]

Does it make that much of a difference if the students were slaughtered in the squares, or just round the corner?

Re:No big secret here

[hedwards]

Yes, it means that the number of protesters killed is a more certain number than previously believed. Meaning that the death toll has almost certainly been exaggerated on the assumption that there were protesters killed where nobody was looking. If they were all killed in places where the world had some means of observing it means that the crimes committed by the Chinese government in this instance were less severe than previously believed.

Re:No big secret here

[brit74]

> "Everything I've ever read about it was that students were run over by tanks, inside the square."
I don't remember the "run over by tanks" part, although I do remember a man standing in front of the tanks, not getting run over.

Re:No big secret here

[dAzED1]

does it make that much of a difference if, instead of being run over by tanks in the square, they may have been shot with guns a few blocks over? Yes, in fact, it does. Tanks running over protestors is substantially different, one; two, I tend to notice that when a false story crumbles, you admit X didn't happen but then say Y happened instead. The gov has been lying quite handily for a while now, we're more and more turning into a police state ourselves, so indeed - it most certainly matters that everything that was ever reported about the incident was incorrect. And what, you think the US government doesn't shoot protestors here? That's a laugh.

Re:No big secret here

[Doc Ruby]

Link to something that says protesters were run over by tanks inside the square. I want to see the quality of such sources that you're willing to believe.

Because I don't remember ever reading or hearing any such thing from anyone credible. What I remember is the video of a protester standing down a column of tanks inside the square. Which tried to go around him. So he stepped to the side back in front of the tank. Which did not run him over.

If what you believe is contrary to what you had good reason to believe, that's your fault.

Re:No big secret here

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0604.html

When troops finally seized Tiananmen Square early Sunday morning, they allowed the student occupiers who held on to the center of the square for three weeks to leave and then sent tanks to run over the tents and makeshift encampment that demonstrators had set up. Unconfirmed reports rapidly spread that some students had remained in the tents and were crushed to death.

No, Nicholas Kristof just included "unconfirmed reports" in his coverage and let the reader draw his own conclusion.

Re:No big secret here

[houghi]

If you said the first happened and then deny it. How must I know if the second happened, but now for real.

Or perhaps you lie about it not happening?

Re:No big secret here

[Gulthek]

No one was run over by tanks.

Also many forget that this wasn't just a few thousand idle students peacefully hanging out in the square. There were about a *million* disaffected students and unemployed workers camping out wherever they could, demanding free food from vendors, and harassing the general public. This went on for almost a month before the government took action.

Think about how long a million people would be allowed to camp outside the US capitol buildings, especially if they were harassing and looting.

Re:No big secret here

[X.25]

... and remember, Li Peng's still alive. There's still time for a trial in the Hague...

Oh, haha, I forgot, he has power and influence.

Yeah. Same like Clinton, Blair, Bush, ...

Re:No big secret here

[dAzED1]

don't be silly - of course we'd be allowed to protest in such numbers. Assuming we stayed in the "free speech zones" and filed the proper permits...

Re:No big secret here

[hoggoth]

People have been arrested for *dancing* in the Jefferson Memorial, so, no I don't think the US would put up with millions camping outside the Capitol.

Re:No big secret here

[poity]

First of all this news in no way lightens the cruel brutality through which the PRC government dealt with their citizens that day, but I want to make a point on a possible explanation for the "tanks crushing people" claim. I'm not saying it's false, since we'll never know the truth having not been there, but consider this: The Chinese word for "suppress" is "ya", which is the same exact word for "to physically crush underneath" -- to put suppress an idea or to crush grapes underfoot for juice, it's the same word. So the phrase "they're using tanks to suppress people in the square" and "they're using tanks to physically crush people in the square" are the same in Chinese. Perhaps the real meaning was lost in the moment, then even more so in translation.

Re:No big secret here

[houghi]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4313282.stm
At the top of the square just in front of the Forbidden City, an APC got separated from its column, and in its panic to get out of the crowd area, ran over several demonstrators. This, in turn, caused the crowd to grow violent.

Yes, technicaly an APC is not a tank. So we look further.

At about four or five in the morning, tank columns raced into the square smashing buses, bicycles and humans under their treads.

Clearly talking about tanks and not an accident.

You can decide for yourself the quality of said source. His name is Charlie Cole and he is the winner of the 1989 World Press Photo of a man standing in front of a tank in China. The URL above tells what happened that day. Sounds like a pretty good quality source to me.

Re:No big secret here

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? ROFL, grow up, Not allowing people to be asses in one small area of one monument does not equal what happened in China.

Re:No big secret here

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Think about how long a million people would be allowed to camp outside the US capitol buildings, especially if they were harassing and looting.

It happened, recall the Bonus Army. *four* people died. Not hundreds (or possibly thousands, accounts vary) like in or around Tiananmen Square.

Re:No big secret here

[Anonymous Coward]

I was working for CTV news in Toronto at the time and I saw the raw footage of a protester getting run over by a tank and squashed like a bug. It's not something you forget. The footage was edited down to make it look like the tank had stopped, which it did, hesitating for a few seconds.

Two weeks later we were visited by the Chinese head of media and they were given a full tour of the facility.

Re:No big secret here

[okmijnuhb]

This should have been in the summary, then I wouldn't have wasted my time thinking the Chinese military peacefully put down the protest, an the US government lied to us about it, and then for a few moments afterwards that Slashdot is controlled by the Chinese trying to put a different face on it.

Slashdot you're beginning to really suck.

Re:No big secret here

[mangu]

The tanks may not have run over him, would be very bad propaganda because foreign reporters were filming from hotel windows. however no one ever knew what became of that man, not even his identity has been divulged.

Re:No big secret here

[Luckyo]

Didn't see folks who ordered nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or carpet bombing Drezden's housing areas on trial either. Winners are exempt from war crime trials.

Re:No big secret here

[ildon]

Does it really matter if they were run over outside or inside the square?

Re:No big secret here

[makomk]

Not only that, but this is actually saying that the US embassy's contact didn't see any bloodshed in the square at the time, not that there wasn't any. All of the leaked cables have similar caveats attached.

Re:No big secret here

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> Winners are exempt from war crime trials.

@Nuremberg, sure. But that was when such trials were in their infancy.

Today, winners are exempt from war crime trials until regime change occurs in their nation. Then sometimes they are hauled before the ICC or another international tribunal, because the new regime is willing to give them up.

Re:No big secret here

[jhoegl]

Yeah, except for the nukes dropping.... it was on a military town, all Japanese citizens were taught to fight until the end, the full effects were not know, theorized maybe but not known, and it saved millions of lives.
For if the Allied forces had to attack Japan with soldiers it would have been a cultural slaughter.
Lets not forget who started the fight, and lets not forget who was given the chance to surrender.
Dont be ignorant in your views, know the full facts before you spew your nonsense.

Re:No big secret here

[linuxrocks123]

Was this footage made public? If not, why not?

Re:No big secret here

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

A lot of Americans live withing walking distance and have relatively unrestricted access to the press and the court system. DC has one of the highest lawyer-per-capita populations in the world. You can't walk ten feet without tripping over an NGO. If anyone tried to cover up something that big, a lot of those people would work very hard to prevent it--and they have media connections and strong grassroots networks.

Re:No big secret here

[31eq]

I don't even see a cable saying the contact didn't see bloodshed. What two of them (with slightly different wording) say is "THERE WAS NO MASS FIRING INTO THE CROWD OF STUDENTS AT THE MONUMENT". These are edited by the Telegraph, but if they edited out a clearer refutation of bloodshed . . . why? "No mass firing" in the square is consistent with what I thought we thought we knew. Nothing about people not being run over by tanks or other vehicles in a part of the square this diplomat may or may not have been watching.

Re:No big secret here

[dAzED1]

by the way, I do find it funny that the post right above yours states "I was working for CTV news in Toronto at the time and I saw the raw footage of a protester getting run over by a tank and squashed like a bug"

Call me an idiot, but I neither believe something simply because it was reported, nor disbelieve it because wikileaks refuted it.

Re:No big secret here

[orasio]

Well, Tiananmen is a big issue when it comes to censorship.
The accepted fact is that we know the truth, and poor, oppressed Chinese people do not, due to censorship.
If it turns out we, free people, believed a lie all these years, it would mean our information is just as doctored as what the Chinese get.
That would mean that the rulers of the west are not better than the guys who build the Great Chinese Firewall, it would only mean that the West methods, mainly propaganda, are better than more direct ones.

Re:No big secret here

[Paul Fernhout]

What do you think of this?
    http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/16118/325657.aspx
"So I would say NO, Japan was not justified in attacking the USA over the USA refusing to sell Japan oil or steel or other stuff.
    It is sad that the Rosevelt Administration refused to speak to the son of the Emperor of Japan who was carrying a deal with the USA that Japan would withdraw from China if the USA would continue the previous trade relationship. The worst part is in the opportunity cost: Mankind would have been saved 2 cities destroyed by atom bombs. Hundreds of cities destroyed by bombing and fire, 1700 Americans on the Arizona, countless innocents in the Pacific Islands and China being killed by bullets, bombs and disease, China going commie, etc."

Or this?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_reparations#Impact_on_the_German_economy
"The economic problems that the payments brought, and German resentment at their imposition are usually cited as one of the more significant factors that led to the end of the Weimar Republic and the beginning of the dictatorship of Adolf Hitler."

Although others disagree with that.

History is pretty complex... This is not to defend expansionist wars of conquest that both Japan and Germany engaged in. As well as the USA at various times (Mexico, Canada, the Philippines, etc.).

The bottom line -- Germany could have prospered if it had turned its ingenuity inward to make Germany work for all its people. Similarly, to use nuclear energy to fight in wars created by people fighting over a perceived scarcity of oil is very ironic.

Re:No big secret here

[Anonymous Coward]

agreed, someone needs to leak this video. i would hav thought it would be on youtube, efukt or something.

Re:No big secret here

[janimal]

Yea! They had it coming, didn't they? Kudos to the PLA for putting a swift end to the mischief.

Re:No big secret here

[Wyatt Earp]

Mises.org is as good of a source for History as Stormfront.org is.

Mises and lewrockwell.com are home to pro-slavery, pro-Confederate, anti-Lincoln, anti-Roosevelt, anti-minority, anti-Semite, anti-equal rights columnists and authors.

Re:No big secret here

[Wyatt Earp]

Because the US Government has never suppressed information or tried to hide it's involvement with any of the Indian Wars, battles or massacres that occurred during them and in modern times, never tried to hide the destruction of the Bonus Army camp in Washington DC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

"The Bonus Army was the popular name of an assemblage of some 43,000 marchers—17,000 World War I veterans, their families, and affiliated groups—who gathered in Washington, D.C., in the spring and summer of 1932 to demand immediate cash-payment redemption of their service certificates."

"On July 28, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired and two veterans were wounded and later died. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the army to clear the veterans' campsite. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded the infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks. The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned.'

4 dead, over 1100 injured.

Re:No big secret here

[martin-boundary]

If this hasn't been obvious to people since the Iraq war, nothing will change their minds now.

Re:No big secret here

[SomePgmr]

Yeah, Tank Man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man

Though it appears that at least some folks went by way of tank track (graphic):
http://pbh2.blogspot.com/2009/06/tiananmen-square-massacre-in-pictures.html

Re:No big secret here

[Solandri]

So the phrase "they're using tanks to suppress people in the square" and "they're using tanks to physically crush people in the square" are the same in Chinese. Perhaps the real meaning was lost in the moment, then even more so in translation.

On the 5th anniversary of the Tienanmen uprisings, there was a graphic shock website which posted photos of the aftermath which had been smuggled out. Many of the photos were very graphic and disturbing, and I had the misfortune of being tricked into visiting it (the web being new, and me being young and innocent without an inkling about things like goatse.cx). One of the photos was indeed of a man who had been physically crushed by a tank. Trust me, you do not want to ever see a human being "flattened like a pancake" as the saying goes - it is disturbing to the point of making you want to throw up if you have an ounce of empathy.

Since it was just a photo though, it does still leave open the question of whether the man was alive at the time, or if he had been shot and killed earlier and the tanks just ran over his body while moving down the street. But either way, people-crushing by tanks really did occur there.

Re:No big secret here

[Dahamma]

The OP is right (more or less - they didn't "wait" for people to leave before shooting, they killed plenty trying to get to the square); this wasn't a secret. Even the Wikipedia article about the massacre shows this fact was known for a while:

BBC 2 June 2009 James Miles, who was the BBC's Beijing correspondent at the time, stated:
I and others conveyed the wrong impression. There was no massacre on Tiananmen Square... Protesters who were still in the square when the army reached it were allowed to leave after negotiations with martial law troops (Only a handful of journalists were on hand to witness this moment [...]). [...] There was no Tiananmen Square massacre, but there was a Beijing massacre.

Re:No big secret here

[Dahamma]

especially if they were harassing and looting.

You haven't been to D.C. lately, have you? ;)

Re:No big secret here

[rogueippacket]

Winners are exempt from war crime trials.

It's true. There is that saying - history is written by the victor.

Re:No big secret here

[Luckyo]

You're presenting my arguments for me: USA specifically signed membership treaty while telling ICC that it will not ratify it until USA citizens get immunity. I wonder why would USA want immunity...

Yeah.

Re:No big secret here

[micheas]

Although that seems to be a fate mostly reserved for African heads of state.

Re:No big secret here

[Luckyo]

Question: if nuke dropping on "military town" (in WW2, essentially every large town was one) was justified, why do we bother with not nuking the shit out of:

1. Afghanistan - essentially 50% military country - male children under age of 10 generally know how to take apart, put together and shoot AK47/74. Only women are not military, and even then to an extent.
2. Iran's military bases and nuclear installations.

Countless other examples.

Perhaps because now we view the (now much smaller but) inevitable civilian casualties in a very different light?

Re:No big secret here

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

1. Some "first-hand" encounters seemed to be fabricated by some journalists.
2. The US government knew but still keen to keep the rumor going. It is not difficult to think that this is calculated to manipulate the public to have a negative feeling towards China.
3. I still remember many of us read CNN live to try to find out what was going on 20 years ago. I have been misled to think armies of tanks drove into the square and run over the students like beer bottles. Now what exactly have happened and how many people have been killed? I am not so sure anymore.

Re:No big secret here

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps because now we view the (now much smaller but) inevitable civilian casualties in a very different light?

Yes, which is why it's a damn good thing we learned our lesson in Japan with 20kt bombs, and not in Korea with 200 kt bombs.

Re:No big secret here

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> I wonder why would USA want immunity...

Several reasons, some of them legitimate. There is a lot of anti-US sentiment in the world that makes the US doubt it can get a fair hearing in an international war crimes setting. Also, the US is the leading military power in the world, and its unique role in world affairs makes it much more likely to get dragged into court than other nations.

In the less legitimate realm, like other world powers, the drawbacks of certain international processes are greater for it than the benefits. It supports the ICC, but will not fully sign on because it does not trust the international community not to be anti-American, and because it would cost either side quite a few votes in domestic elections. Finally, when it does things badly, it does not want attention drawn to it, and signing on to the ICC makes it slightly harder to cover things up when they decide to for reasons of saving face--they need to pretend to do an investigation. The ICJ shows that pretty clearly--a CIA operation supporting terrorist techniques against communists during the cold war was dragged into the spotlight.

Re:No big secret here

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q6_uI3G5CM

Re:No big secret here

[Eunuchswear]

> Winners are exempt from war crime trials.

@Nuremberg, sure. But that was when such trials were in their infancy.

Today, winners are exempt from war crime trials until regime change occurs in their nation. Then sometimes they are hauled before the ICC or another international tribunal, because the new regime is willing to give them up.

Which explains GWB's residence in a cell in the Hague. Or, maybe not.

Nuremburg is dead. "War crimes" now officaly means "bad stuff done by people we don't like".

Re:No big secret here

[Eunuchswear]

You're presenting my arguments for me: USA specifically signed membership treaty while telling ICC that it will not ratify it until USA citizens get immunity. I wonder why would USA want immunity...

Yeah.

American exceptionalism.

Americans are the good guys, therefore any attempt to "bring them to justice" is by definition unjust.

Re:No big secret here

[KiloByte]

No one was run over by tanks.

Then what about this image(warning: EXTREMELY gory)?

Re:No big secret here

[strikethree]

Ah. Nice. The lie is made more palatable by changing the location of the bloodshed. "Sorry, we mislead you to believe that the evil Chinese slaughtered their own people in some important square. In order to help you feel less betrayed by our dishonesty, we will make allegations that there was still some slaughtering going, but it was around the corner where no TV reporters were."

And so the lie is complete... but was there really slaughtering going on in the square? Was there really slaughtering going on "around the corner"? Was there even a mass protest?

Some application of logic and probabilities states there probably were mass protests and that numerous people died in the square.

Was it an intentional slaughter as it was portrayed? Well, that is what is being retracted now. Why was it important to portray it as an intentional slaughter then and why is it so important to retract that portrayal now?

Ultimately it does not matter. What does matter to me is that it is clear that Slashdot is controlled by "them" now. Interesting.

(I love these CAPTCHAs. How they do make them so omniscient? Mine is currently "annexed". Reality is too hilarious to be real.

strike

Re:No big secret here

[m50d]

it was on a military town, all Japanese citizens were taught to fight until the end

So what, if the government mandates defense classes that makes civilians fair game? I guess that means there were no civilian casualties in any war ever.

it saved millions of lives

Maybe. Or maybe Japan would've surrendered to Stalin in a few weeks otherwise. In any case, it's utterly beside the point - every war crime ever was committed in the interests of "shortening the war" (by ensuring your side wins, of course). They're still war crimes.

Re:No big secret here

[the entropy]

So where does that anti-US sentiment come from... I wonder...

Re:No big secret here

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalese_cable_car_disaster_(1998)

we still want to hang (metaphorically) them there. but they won't let. even if they admitted their guilty. I wonder why they're hated.

Re:No big secret here

[MareLooke]

Bullocks, that's the excuse used by the perpetrators of this war crime to justify it. Dropping a bomb over the civil center of a town (the town hall, in fact), military or no is inexcusable. It's like dropping a nuke over Notre Dame because there's arms factories in Paris' suburbs.

On top of that it was widely known that japan was on the verge of capitulation and had been negotiating surrender already (see here for example; google will no doubt turn up way more) so the nukes were just plain unnecessary. Of course, these facts tend to get swiped under the carpet as they don't exactly reflect well on the then US government.

Re:No big secret here

[Anonymous Coward]

>> ...everything that was ever reported about the incident was incorrect.

So, it sounds like you're thinking, hey, if there were no casualties in Tiananmen Square, maybe there were few if any casualties at all. Maybe it was all a Big Lie.

Let me dissuade you of that.

My wife was there. She used to work in Beijing. She witnessed first-hand the atrocities. She describes walking down a street and feeling a sticky sensation under her shoes from stepping in blood. She has nightmares about this stuff. She cries when I ask her about June 4, 1989. She was almost shot herself. This was west of Tiananmen, as a large crowd was heading to the Square to protest. Hundreds of victims? From her description, certainly. Thousands? I don't know. There were casualties in more than one location, so it's hard to know.

There are pictures, there are eye-witness accounts, and there are other forms of evidence. The massacre in Beijing on June 4, 1989 did happen. Whether anyone died in Tiananmen Square proper is completely irrelevant. It's certainly irrelevant to the dead.

>> And what, you think the US government doesn't shoot protestors here?

Not like this. Never like this. Not once, ever, in our history. The US government has done plenty of bad things. Not once have they deliberately opened fire with live ammunition on peaceful protests and killed hundreds or thousands of people. When Kent State happened, 4 students were killed; but even there, no fire order was ever deliberately given. The Chinese government issued specific orders to its military to open fire with live ammunition. There's no comparison.

Whatever you do with the information from WikiLeaks, you shouldn't assume that somehow the Chinese government was the victim here. I sense the possibility of a Big Lie being spread, one where somehow the Chinese government wasn't responsible for that day or didn't really deliberately slaughter its own people. It did.

Re:No big secret here

[kj_kabaje]

You need to go back more than a few wars here... It's been obvious for a *lot* longer than that.

Re:No big secret here

[mevets]

I vaguely remember a study, from the pre Glasnost era, claiming USSR citizens had a better knowledge of current world affairs than American citizens. Can't find any reference to it, but I doubt I dreamed it up.

It may be easier to pick the oats out of what is known to be shit than what is thought to be apple pie.

Re:No big secret here

[jgtg32a]

And lets not forget MacArthur was put in charge of suppressing them as well.

Re:No big secret here

[jgtg32a]

Why did websense block that link as "Racism and Hate"

Re:No big secret here

[Luckyo]

Almost got to learn it with hundreds of megaton class nukes in Cuba. Thank whatever deity there is for Kennedy and Khrushchev for having a shred of common sense.

Re:No big secret here

[gfreeman]

Seriously? ROFL, grow up, Not allowing people to be asses in one small area of one monument does not equal what happened in China.

Suppression of freedom of speech is suppression of freedom of speech. The scale may be different but a country that denies freedom of speech has no moral right to claim otherwise.

Re:No big secret here

[hondo77]

Negotiating surrender? What part of unconditional surrender confuses you? Japan didn't want the emperor touched? Boo-freaking-hoo. Japanese pride when they had no negotiating leverage caused the first bomb to be dropped. Doing nothing caused the second bomb to be dropped. It took two atomic bombs to pry unconditional surrender out of the Japanese. Blaming the U.S. for that instead of the Japanese leadership is just revisionist b.s.

Re:No big secret here

[MareLooke]

Should have read the link, they surrendered under terms that were barely any different from those first proposed (the Emperor remained untouched, for one). And it's not revisionist if there's strong evidence supporting those claims, of course it's not exactly popular especially in the US, just like pointing out that bombing a couple of German cities (missing the military targets, which were located outside the cities) into oblivion during WOII isn't exactly popular here, which doesn't make it less true though.

Re:No big secret here

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> So where does that anti-US sentiment come from... I wonder...

A variety of places. Some of it is legitimate and other parts are not. For example, if someone is bitter at the United States because it allies itself with wretched hives of scum and villainy, as we do on occasion, that is legitimate. Similarly if its people are mistreated by its soldiers. While it would be best to direct the hatred at the individuals responsible, the nation still bears responsibility and gets stigma.

Other parts are not. For example, the Arab-Israeli conflict is an incredibly polarized one in which pretty much nobody thinks with a clear head--everyone involved views facts in a highly slanted way and sees those facts as confirming their suspicions and distrust of anyone on the other side or whoever helps the other side. The United States blocks numerous Arab actions against Israel in the UN, and people hate the US in part because of that. That is less legitimate.

A lot of people also dislike the US because, frankly, the US makes an easy target--it is easy to rally people against it. It is a large abstraction that plays a role in many regions, and it can be painted easily as an enemy, an "other" because it is visually different from many parts of the world in race and is socially different from the other parts of the world. Again, that is not legitimate, but people use it to solidify their own power bases.

Some people like the US because of the work it does--anti-malarial work in Africa. Some people like it because they remember, still, Pearl Harbor, and the sense of hope it gave to the free world to have America finally enter WW2. Some people dislike it because of the Iraq War--although all of the major world powers are guilty of it, for signing the UN resolution designed to both authorize it and not authorize it depending on which politician was speaking.

Re:No big secret here

[macshit]

An excellent summary, which deserves to be modded up!

[but unfortunately moderation on Slashdot is like 99% timing -- a good comment added soon after a story is posted is vastly more likely to get moderated up than a great comment posted five hours later...]

Re:No big secret here

[DarenN]

Maybe. Or maybe Japan would've surrendered to Stalin in a few weeks otherwise. In any case, it's utterly beside the point - every war crime ever was committed in the interests of "shortening the war" (by ensuring your side wins, of course). They're still war crimes.

Nonsense. The invasion of Okinawa and the resultant casualties on both sides as well as the ferocious no-surrender attitude of the defenders is what justified the dropping of the bomb on Japan. The American high command reckoned that the battle for any the Japanese home islands (which have ample defensive terrain - the whole place is essentially a volcanic mountain range) would cost millions of lives and require the slaughter of Japanese which they really didn't want. The decision was to shock the Japanese into surrender. While there were other implications such as demonstrating nuclear weapons to the Russians, these were secondary.

Unlike the fire-bombing of Dresden, which had pretty much no strategic or tactical purpose this was necessary in the context of the time. The subsequent treatment of both the Japanese and the Germans by the Americans (who stomped rather firmly on talk of massive World War I style reparations) shows that as a nation they were not overly vicious or vindictive. Second guessing the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is ridiculous.

Re:No big secret here

[the entropy]

"if someone is bitter at the United States because it allies itself with wretched hives of scum and villainy, as we do on occasion, that is legitimate"
"The United States blocks numerous Arab actions against Israel in the UN, and people hate the US in part because of that. That is less legitimate."

The United States doesn't just block Arab actions against Israel, it blocks world actions against Israel. I'll start by saying that I'm an Arab, specifically, I'm Lebanese(and Christian, this matters as a Lebanese person as Christians have tended, historically, to be more pro-Israel). However, I've grown quite detached, emotionally, from the issue.

Read some of the writings of Robert Fisk, David Hirst or Noam Chomsky on the Arab-Israeli struggle. You will see, that despite the western media picturing it otherwise, the case of Israel and any of the other regimes which oppress people and cause hatred is not really that different.

As for it making an easy target, again, I'd have to disagree. It doesn't. People here are actually attracted to western lifestyles(and I'm not just talking about Lebanon, but all the Arab states, I've been to Egypt quite a few times and have been living as a missionary in Syria for the past year) and do not hate the west because of those(except for a minority of fundamentalist bigots, and again, despite the media picturing it otherwise, they are a minority).

It is solely and fundamentally American and Israeli policy that has alienated the region from you, that has created tensions and given birth to Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism in their modern forms. Islamic fundamentalism was born as a result of American tampering in Iran(even pro-west sources such as this book: http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Cold-War-Conflict/dp/0786717319 will tell you as much). It was sustained by the US in Afghanistan and it has now spread to many regions in the middle east. Hezbollah, also as an example, was born of the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Internationally condemned with many UN resolutions to testify for this but US(Reagan) backed.

This: http://www.amazon.com/Gun-Olive-Branch-Violence-Middle/dp/1560254831 is a good book to start from if you want to read about the history of the region. Check the author out if you don't think he can be trusted to be objective or knowledgeable on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hirst_(journalist)

Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

I head this in high school history (mid 90's).

why did you post this?

[circletimessquare]

there was no bloodshed inside the square, the bloodshed happened around the square. but it's called the tiananmen square massacre, because that was the focal point of the conflict. duh

furthermore, there never was any contention about what happened and where. this "shocking discovery" is mundane fact universally understood and agreed upon by anyone who has seriously looked at the massacre, or actually been there

so to post this cable, as if it is shocking to discover that which has always been known, has the appearance of a cover up or a smear against china, in the eyes of your average idiot reading this post who's knows nothing about tiananmen square

so why post this ignorant crap? there's no discovery in this "secret cable". there is only a factoid which agrees with what everyone has known about the massacre since day 1

this is fucking pathetic of you slashdot, to pass this on. you are spreading ignorance. watch all the fucking conspiracy morons get in a tizzy that this proves some hollywood style line of thought. pathetic. and you support morons by posting this "shocking discovery" slashdot

Re:why did you post this?

[dAzED1]

The average mundane "idiot" doesn't have the time to be a subject matter expert on every single event in history, every single peice of technology, so on so forth, all at once. Most of us "idiots" base our perceptions on that which we're told in shortened recounts of such things. And for my idiotic experiences, that was that tanks ran over students, in the square. If you knew this to not be true, yet let it remain generally believed, then it is you to blame - not wikileaks or slashdot.

Re:why did you post this?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

this is fucking pathetic of you slashdot, to pass this on. you are spreading ignorance

Totally. No one ever contradicts the premise of a story on slashdot. That just isn't the slashdot way. If the slashdot editors really cared about readers getting a more accurate understanding of a story, they would have some sort of way for other people to provide contrary evidence and opinions. Too bad slashdot is so totalitarian.

Re:why did you post this?

[Freultwah]

You do talk a lot in absolutes (never any contention, universally understood and agreed upon), but I do think this deserved to be posted at least for informing those who *haven't* seriously looked into the topic, which would be the overwhelming majority of people. Even on /.

Re:why did you post this?

[jon_doh2.0]

Totally. Slashdot clearly puts incendiary articles up just to garner loads of comments and make Slashdot a more active place.

Manipulative, yes. But, it makes for controversial and lively debate.

Re:why did you post this?

[circletimessquare]

there is bringing out all the facts, then there is a headline that points to one factoid in the events that implies, years later, that the massacre didn't happen

that's spreading ignorance. duh

Re:why did you post this?

[Mashiki]

Most of the time you call people like that shills or propagandists.

Re:why did you post this?

[circletimessquare]

no, there's no evil at work here on slashdot's part, only stupidity:

  "omg, look what they found in wikileaks!"

(and what they found is mundane)

Re:why did you post this?

[dmomo]

>> has the appearance of a cover up or a smear against china, in the eyes of your average idiot reading this post who's knows nothing about tiananmen square

Or to be fair, in the eyes of the intellegent reader who happens to not know the details of what is referred to as the Tiananmen Square Massacre.

Don't be so dramatic. Not everyone knows everything and we all take accounts of some events for granted. You rant has some good points, but my eyes glazed over at your egotistical attitude. You've got something to contribute, clearly. Why not let people take you more seriously?

Re:why did you post this?

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA:

"In 2009, James Miles, who was the BBC correspondent in Beijing at the time, admitted that he had "conveyed the wrong impression" and that "there was no massacre on Tiananmen Square. Protesters who were still in the square when the army reached it were allowed to leave after negotiations with martial law troops [ ...] There was no Tiananmen Square massacre, but there was a Beijing massacre". "

Unless 2009 is somehow day 1, there was contention.

Re:why did you post this?

[dAzED1]

yes. If you are truly a historian, and know for a fact that a widely-held belief is incorrect, and can also easily prove this to be true - then you are, in fact, to blame for this widely held belief still being perpetuated.

Re:why did you post this?

[arkenian]

I kinda haveta agree with GP. I have no objection to posting this as a matter of fact, but it kinda feels like its posted as if the US set out to smear China. That's not what happened. Yes, many people's understanding of what happened in Tianamen is highly garbled (in no small part, I feel obliged to point out, because China went to a GREAT DEAL of effort to prevent accurate reporting, which not only reduced the number of facts but is also precisely the wrong way to handle the sensationalist western media) but there's nothing in this cable that's a particularly stunning revelation . . . I think what bothers people about much of the reporting surrounding wikileaks is that people act like we're getting all these stunning revelations of facts that were, for the most part, public already, and nobody paid much attention to them (and the important policy implications) until wikileaks came along. What's worse, the attention being paid seems to focus on the presumption that these facts WEREN'T publicly available information in some form before, which distorts the argument from a rational discussion of what impact the facts should have on policy, to "OMG coverup!". (and I'm not denying that the US Government certainly hasn't gone out of its way to clear up the misconceptions its citizens have on this subject.) Finally, on those occasions when wikileaks truly DOES reveal something new or surprising, that gets lost in all the noise. Come to think of it, conspiracy theorists, you might want to think about that last point...

Re:why did you post this?

[DamonHD]

Suppose I (just one person without any particular personal connection) did not "understand" what you claim to be "universally understood".

Then your assertion is *false*. That's the danger of making absolute claims like the one that you just made *again*; you undermined and invalidated all the rest of your argument/rant.

Please at least use the words "absolute" and "universal" correctly in a forum with a high-ish proportion of readers who care about accuracy and precision.

Rgds

Damon

Re:why did you post this?

[dAzED1]

knowledge flows from those who have it, to those who do not. If those who have it do not share it, then they are to blame for it not being widely known. By the by, your continued insistence upon attempting to insult doesn't help your argument in the least. Oh, and as another side note - very credible sources do indeed say tanks ran over protestors in the square - such as the person who took the iconic photograph. Also, this might come as a surprise to you, but some of us learned things before we could "link" our sources; what I know on the subject, I learned in textbooks that I read long before most had even heard of the internet.

Re:why did you post this?

[bye]

knowledge flows from those who have it, to those who do not. If those who have it do not share it, then they are to blame for it not being widely known.

How do you know he didn't share it? Maybe he shared it and people still believed in the simpler story.

This happens all the time.

• - Did you know that medieval people thought that the earth was flat? (It's common knowledge and it's wrong.)
• - Did you know that there's nothing faster than the speed of light? (It's common knowledge and it's wrong.)
• - Did you know that hackers were always criminals? (It's common knowledge still it's wrong.)

Fact is, 75% of people have around average or worse intelligence and they prefer to simplify what they know about the world they live in. Do you belong to that group?

Re:why did you post this?

[Dogtanian]

If you are truly a historian, and know for a fact that a widely-held belief is incorrect, and can also easily prove this to be true - then you are, in fact, to blame for this widely held belief still being perpetuated.

If that's what you truly think, then you are grossly, *grossly* naive about how the world works.

There are countless historical, political, scientific, etc. etc. etc. inaccuracies out there that experts can- and do- authoritatively and comprehensively dispel until they're blue in the face, yet are still propagated. Propogated because people pass on what they "know" to be true as the "truth", or because it suits large vested interests to have people believe that, or simply because people don't like having their existing beliefs challenged and will frequently rationalise their dismissal of what would seem to be incontrovertible proof that they are wrong.

Honestly, your belief otherwise suggests either the naivity of a sheltered youth or that you are one of the ignorant "idiots"- and your low ID number suggests that you're probably too old to be excused as the former.

Re:why did you post this?

[LordLimecat]

The average mundane "idiot" doesn't have the time to be a subject matter expert on every single event in history, every single peice of technology, so on so forth, all at once

And on that assumption, you would think we would have far fewer people posting about such things that they havent researched; sadly, thats not the case.

Re:why did you post this?

[Dogtanian]

If those who have it do not share it, then they are to blame for it not being widely known.

Your implication is that he knew this, yet kept it secret or did not share it.

The only apparent reason I can see for you believing this is that- if I read you correctly- you seem to think that if anyone in possession of the truth tells other people, then all inaccuracies and incorrectly-held beliefs will be dispelled. Thus the fact that this isn't the case *must* be clear evidence that circletimessquare is to blame for withholding the information.....?!!!

Regardless of who is correct about the tanks, your apparent expectation that such people can- and should- be solely responsible for the failure of such information to be disseminated is a ludicrously unreasonable burden to place on them for reasons I already described in the linked post.

Re:why did you post this?

[bye]

Did you know that medieval people thought that the earth was flat?

No, they didn't.

That was my point - see the "it's wrong" in parentheses :-)

All three statements are "common knowledge" but are false: medieval people were not so stupid to think that the earth is flat, the universe expands faster than the speed of light and hackers were not criminals originally.

Re:why did you post this?

[dAzED1]

sharing it doesn't mean ridiculing those who do not already have it. It means sharing it.

Re:why did you post this?

[bye]

What's faster than the speed of light?

(Other then the hypothesized expansion of the early universe as current theory stands.)

The current expansion of the universe is faster than the speed of light.

Distances between the out-most galaxies at opposite ends of the universe is growing faster than the speed of light and current models suggest that this process is accelerating.

Some quick (and hopefully not totally bogus!) back of the envelope calculations: the latest value for the Hubble constant is 71 km/sec (with about 5% of accuracy), which means 71 km/sec expansion of the universe, per megaparsec of space. Given that the current size of the universe is about 28,000 psec, this means that the universe is expanding about 2 million kilometers per second. That's moving opposite boundaries away from each other more than 6 times faster than the speed of light. (which is 0.3 million kilometers per second)

That does not mean that any physical matter can move faster than the speed of light, sadly.

Re:why did you post this?

[dAzED1]

"inaccuracies out there that experts can- and do- authoritatively and comprehensively dispel until they're blue in the face, yet are still propagated"

You're not catching a vital part of the conversation. The problem wasn't that there's a disparity of knowledge, the problem is that the person who claims to be substantially correct, is immediately ridiculing those who do not already know what he knows. That's elitism, not someone who is want to share knowledge. "If you don't know, I won't tell you" isn't exactly the moral high ground in the situation.

And here, claim to be an expert on why I'm saying what I'm saying, despite what I'm saying not having been so starkly black/white. Me, I know of plenty of "sins" of our own government, so I don't really spend a lot of time critiquing other cultures who - at a glance - seem to be barely any worse (if not more or less the same) than our own culture in this particular regard. An idiotic way to look at it - perhaps, but sometimes the simple idea of removing the plank from your own eye first, actually does make sense.

Re:why did you post this?

[dAzED1]

btw, regarding your ending "question," I'm going to assume you've never worked with corporate executives, nor been one yourself. Some people need to have a "big picture" which, as I mentioned, means they can't actually be subject-matter experts upon all the subjects that they do, unfortunately, make decisions. It's easy for an engineer in a particular field to harsh anyone not in that field for not knowing that field - ask that same engineer the metabolic pathway for dopamine degredation, and they'll be at a loss. Ask the person who, as a hobby, learns the "real" facts about some particular historical event - they too will be at a loss, most likely.

Me, I just go with the idea that mankind is confused, self-destructive, combatitive, and generally full of self-righteous arses. Instead, I tend to be more interested in subjects that are less "soft" and subjective. There are people in this very thread who claim to have personally witnessed tanks running people over - then people who claim to be history experts, and say any who think that to be true are idiots.

I've always gone with the idea that once you base your argument on insulting someone, you've lost the argument. Some of the more angry on the internet disagree, I guess ;)

Re:why did you post this?

[dAzED1]

when at all did I claim he was solely responsible for it? When did I say anyone was solely responsilble for anything? He, not I, is the one that questioned whether the subject should be brought up. If he's a historian that thinks this "truth" should be more widely known, then he should be celebrating it, not ridiculing wikileaks and slashdot, calling them propagandists.

Re:why did you post this?

[phantomfive]

It's probably not news if it's something you could learn by skimming over the Wikipedia entry. In that case, it's your fault for not caring enough to look it up

The number of casualties is still controversial. These leaked cables (which apparently we can't even read, they were released exclusively to the Telegraph) at best give us one more data point.....a datapoint that comes from an eye witness account of a Chilean diplomat. What actually happened is not known.

Part of the problem may be that different eye-witnesses were there at different times. The standoff lasted for a while. Other eye witnesses reported tanks crushing people. At one point, there were tanks in the square, peacefully. Looking here, you can see no one is being killed. It's rather calm. Earlier though, you can tell things are bad, even if you can't determine exactly where.

Re:why did you post this?

[mhelander]

"although, for the sake of truth, universal agreement by all witnesses is as close as you get to an absolute in reality"

I had a friend who tried to convince me of the merits of Christianity using exactly that argument.

Re:why did you post this?

[bye]

I don't think we disagree about executives.

A good executive, while not having expert knowledge in every field he supervises, will have a much better idea about what his limitations are, and he won't "simplify" the world and believe that this simplified model is reality .

Instead he'll use a simplified model to make decisions, in full knowledge of the risks that this brings with it. He'll trust good experts around him to tell him when he messes up - but he won't (and can't) expect the experts to be able to produce (nearly) the same rate of average-to-good decisions that he can do.

A good executive will also generally have pretty good emotional intelligence - there's many forms of intelligence and not all are well recognized.

So an executive is in stark contrast to what the general population does when it comes to understanding the world and making decisions.

Also, did you mean to suggest that I insulted someone with my last paragraph? I think it's a factual statement and it's not really shaped (or intended) as an insult.

Tomato Tomato

[similar_name]

I just want to point out as these threads get started that everything is relative. There are fine lines between terrorists, rebels, rioters and demonstrators and typically that line is determined by the winners and which side you're on. So, before we deride the Chinese government we should remember the workers riots at the turn of the century in the U.S. where many were killed by authorities, or the race riots of the 60s, again where many died, the following war demonstrators where again authority put them down, the Chicago riots, the L.A. riots and all the other riots that we call riots because they were put down and we live here.

I'm not saying any of it is right or siding with any side but the Chinese authority protect that authority just like authority in any other country, including whichever one you happen to live in.

Re:Tomato Tomato

[the eric conspiracy]

The difference is that in this country such things were reported on the news, you can read reports about what happened, and many laws were changed as a result.

Re:Tomato Tomato

[similar_name]

I didn't say anyone should be able to kill anyone, I only wanted to point out that it is what it is. It's still wrong.

waving a machine gun and slaughtering bystanders - terrorist

They may not have had machine guns back then but I believe many founding fathers of the United States where called terrorists by the British. It all has to do with who won and which side you are supporting.

Re:Tomato Tomato

[blackraven14250]

The "terrorists" then fought for secular freedom for everyone. The terrorists now fight for religious oppression of those who are not Muslim or male.

Re:Tomato Tomato

[similar_name]

The "terrorists" then fought for secular freedom for everyone

hmmm, except black people. I'm pretty sure there were many slaves that were not Christian (and certainly not Western Christians) but were then forced to become so. For there own good of course, savages that they were /sarcasm.

The terrorists now fight for religious oppression of those who are not Muslim or male.

Many of them would argue they fight for there way of life (that we don't agree with) and against what they see as oppression by a foreign government. I believe there may even be some females taking up that fight.

Again, I'm not siding with them. I'm merely pointing out that the word terrorist is a very subjective one and has hardly any objective meaning. A terrorist is simply 1. Someone fighting a force much larger than themselves and thus has to fight 'dirty'. and 2. Someone who is fighting for a cause you don't believe in.

I just find words like terrorist serving no purpose other than emotional.

Re:Tomato Tomato

[c6gunner]

hmmm, except black people. I'm pretty sure there were many slaves that were not Christian (and certainly not Western Christians) but were then forced to become so. For there own good of course, savages that they were /sarcasm.

If you look up the history of slavery in the US, you'll find that the first real slave-owner was a black Angolan who was himself once an indentured-servant. He was the first to bring suit in order to retain a servant for life, and the courts ruled in his favor. Things kinda snowballed from there. But the idea that slavery was introduced "for their own good" is ludicrous; nobody ever claimed any such thing. As far as I can tell, slavery became legal because this guy successfully argued that back home in Angola, that's how they do things, and the courts said "well if that's your culture, then sure!".

Many of them would argue they fight for there way of life (that we don't agree with) and against what they see as oppression by a foreign government.

They can argue all they want, it doesn't fucking matter. I don't care if a child-rapist-murderer argues that he's just living life his own way, that doesn't mean I'm going to stop calling him a pedophile and a murderer, and it doesn't mean I'll stand aside and let him do what he wants. There is a quantifiable difference between a society which frees it's people, and a society which oppresses it's people, and there is a quantifiable difference between people who fight for freedom and those who fight for the right to oppress others. If you're unwilling to see that difference, that's your problem - don't expect the rest of us to turn a blind eye.

Re:Tomato Tomato

[similar_name]

Geez. First the statement that it was for their own good was in reference to converting people to Christianity. This was done to the Native Americans too and it's not an unsupported view of history. In the context of the post in which I was replying, the statement was made that our founding fathers fought for secular freedom of everyone. I was pointing out that this was not entirely true (3/5 compromise, women's suffrage) They fought for the freedoms of white men because by and large they were white men. And before you mention that there were black people or women fighting in the revolution too, there are women fighting for fundamental Islam as well.

Secondly, I'm not turning a blind eye to anything and the emotional response (swearing comes from an emotional part of the brain and is not processed the way other words are) of your post is precisely my point. Labeling the enemy as terrorist or evil doesn't really mean anything other than to tell you what you're own viewpoint is. I don't know how much clearer I can be. I DO NOT SUPPORT WHAT THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR. I'm only pointing out that they are fighting for their way of life much like we would fight for ours (right or wrong, people often fight for the status quo). They didn't put military bases in our country, we put ours in theirs. If you do not understand the enemy, how are you every going to fight them? Labeling them terrorists does nothing to help understand them. Sorry if that makes you mad.

If it makes you feel better call them evil, bad guys, terrorist or whatever you want. None of those terms do anything to understand why they're fighting us.

Re:Tomato Tomato

[c6gunner]

Yep, you're right, there's no reason to get emotional about a nitwit defending fascists and murderers. Carry on, good sir!

Re:Tomato Tomato

[Bing Tsher E]

hmmm, except black people. I'm pretty sure there were many slaves ... (jabber snipped)

The first American killed as a soldier in the Revolutiuonary War, Crispus Attucks was a black man.

Re:Tomato Tomato

[similar_name]

Name calling now? Really? At least tell me where I defended fascists or murderers. I even tried typing in Caps that I don't support them. But because I take issue with some terms that are emotionally loaded I'm now defending something? OK I DON'T DEFEND THEIR BEHAVIOR, I just think it's worth understanding it to better fight it and many of the terms used do nothing to understand it.

Re:Tomato Tomato

[similar_name]

Does the fact that women die for Islam mean they're fighting for women's rights?

Re:Tomato Tomato

[similar_name]

The best, most honest, real response I've gotten so far. Everyone else just got mad at me for pointing out that many of the terms we use to describe opposing sides are subjective.

Re:Tomato Tomato

[c6gunner]

At least tell me where I defended fascists or murderers. I even tried typing in Caps that I don't support them.

*sigh*

Ok, try this:

"I DON'T LIKE the Bloods and the Cryps, but I don't see why you have to call them 'criminals'. They're just fighting for their way of life, same as we would fight for ours. We send cops to their neighbourhoods, they don't send them to ours. Calling them 'criminals' or 'evil' doesn't help us understand them.

If, after reading that, you still can't understand how retarded you sound to me - or why I think you're defending them - then you're a lost cause. I mean, you seem like a fairly intelligent guy for the most part, but when you start complaining about people who use completely appropriate terminology to describe those whom they oppose, you come across as a drooling cretin. Take a minute to think about what you're saying. I understand full well the importance of understanding your enemy - I simply don't see a reason to turn into mealy-mouthed apologists while we study them.

And, if your silly opposition to the language wasn't bad enough, you just HAD to throw in that "bases in their countries" bullshit, and remove all doubt that you're spreading their propaganda. Up to that point I had thought that maybe you were just some kind of weird pedant, but that phrase removed all doubt.

Re:Tomato Tomato

[janimal]

If you do not put a value on freedom of speech, free enterprise, the right to a fair trial, the right to privacy, then yes. Everything is relative and there is no good and no evil, communist regimes are about power to the people, and all countries are just as bad for having killed some of their citizens at one time or another.
Now, with that out of the way, I heard great things about North Korea. You hardly hear any complaints coming out of that country.

Re:Tomato Tomato

[Anubis IV]

While I certainly don't disagree with your ideas regarding it being relative, equating the acts of the Chinese military in this incident to those of any other authority is massively misleading for one simple reason: the number of people killed. Please pardon the excessive use of Wikipedia links, but here are some numbers I found for the deadliest individual riots related to the incidents you mentioned.

Workers riots: At least 12 dead at the Haymarket Affair, 2/3 of them officers
Race riots of the '60s: 43 dead in the 1967 Detroit Riots
Anti-war riots: 4 dead at the Kent State massacre
1968 Chicago riots: 11 dead
LA riots of 1992: 53 dead
Tiananmen Square massacre: Estimates vary from 200 up to 10K

As you can see, there is a difference of 1-3 orders of magnitude between any individual riot related to what you mentioned and the massacre at Tiananmen Square. Again, suggesting that the Chinese military acted just like an authority in any other country is misleading and doesn't consider the facts. The events surrounding Tiananmen Square are on a scale unheard of in most other countries.

Footnote: In all of those, I grabbed the most deadly ones I could find, though I was by no means exhaustive, so I won't promise that there aren't worse ones I missed. Most of the race riots either had single-digit or no deaths, though there were a few other double-digit ones with less. None of the other workers riots I checked had double digit deaths. Very few of the anti-war protests I checked had any deaths at all.

Re:Tomato Tomato

[similar_name]

I mentioned the bases because it is something that causes some people in that area to dislike us. I can accept that there may be good reasons for those bases. I can accept that the governments of those countries allow them to be there. But I don't dismiss their existence there as a reason for causing people not to like us. Or at least as you say a basis for terrorists propaganda.

Personally, I think the number one reason most people fight offensively (outside of nationalism) is poverty and hunger. It's easy to get people to fight when they're hungry and it's easy to say 'your hungry because those other guys are evil'. It's a common tool to blame hunger and poverty on the enemy to promote violent action throughout history. Without that poverty it would be unlikely people there would care as much about our bases anymore than we care that foreign troops train at our bases (not an exact analogy but there are no foreign bases on US soil that I'm aware of).

I understand why people take issue with calling into question the validity of labeling someone a terrorists. It's just that historically terrorists are very interchangeable with rebels. Criminals commit crimes and are thus called criminals. It's a fairly specific term and generally doesn't relate to ideology. I haven't seen the Cryps and Bloods defend what they do because they are fighting for their way of life. If they did begin to do that they would move from criminal to some ideological label determined by the very factors I'm bringing up. We would call them terrorists and they would call themselves rebels.

Terrorists commit terror and are labeled terrorist. The problem is, any fighting force creates terror (if 'Shock and Awe' didn't create some kind of terror it wouldn't be as useful) so the term terrorist gets used to describe a smaller fighting force and the tactics that comes with. Almost all fighting forces that are vastly overwhelmed resort to 'terrorism', like the Sons of Liberty. Heroes today. And I'm glad they did what they had to (like burning the Governors house down). I've seen many western media reports use Chechen rebels when discussing Chechnya. Likewise I see Russian media reports use the term Chechen terrorists. Those terms don't really tell me anything about what the conflict is about.

When Osama Bin Laden et al. were fighting our enemy, the Russians, we called them freedom fighters. When they fight us, they're terrorists. Same people, the only thing that really changed is who they're fighting. I don't even think their ideology for fighting the West and the Russians is different.

My attack on the English language (Hey I'm a slashdotter right? :) ) was that the term terrorists is very subjective and doesn't really define anything specific to the person being called one. I personally think criminal is more specific to breaking the law without connotation of ideology. For instance, while Rosa Parks could be called a criminal, the ideological aspect of her 'law breaking' changes that for most people.

Rebels, revolutionaries and terrorists are all very similar and in large part differentiated by the victor and whose side you are on. In other words they get used so much by authority that they lose any real meaning. Calling them terrorists means nothing about which ideology is right, it only means which side is bigger and deflects attention from why they are fighting us as well as why we should be fighting them.

If we're only fighting them because they are terrorists that doesn't tell me which side is right any more than the British labeling the Sons of Liberty as terrorists tells me which side is right.

Now with all that. I submit that if we are fighting to lift oppression, therefore increasing prosperity, and thus eliminating much of the reason they would want (or be motivated) to attack us. I'm 100% on board.

Re:Tomato Tomato

[dkleinsc]

If you look up the history of slavery in the US, you'll find that the first real slave-owner was a black Angolan who was himself once an indentured-servant.

Citation needed, sir / ma'am.

The first enslaved people in the Americas were American Indians. Specifically, there were some societies that enslaved each other. The first to experience European-style slavery were the Arawaks, who had the misfortune to meet Christopher Columbus. Columbus promptly enslaved many of them and captured several to be taken back to Europe.

As far as the first slaves of Europeans in the present-day US, in 1526 the Spanish created the colony of San Miguel de Guadalupe, with African slaves as their primary workforce. The Africans mostly escaped and joined the nearby American Indians, and the Spanish promptly abandoned their colony.

Re:Tomato Tomato

[similar_name]

I have heard there were between 100,000 and 1 million people involved with Tienanmen square, so it was on a much larger scale. Not sure what the percentages would mean, but I'm not really equating the specifics anyway. I'm just saying authority maintains its authority however it needs to. There are many factors that differentiate each conflict. But one factor is consistent and that is authority maintaining authority. At least visually the infamous picture of the student standing in front of the tank in Tienanmen Square is not that far off from the student putting a flower in the gun of a national guardsman. Considering the similarities in those photos and how different we are supposed to be from the Chinese it's kind of sad.

Civilian meet authority.

I'm single with no children and may be out of a job soon. I've considered that I can work anywhere in the world. I have not considered China. I like the freedoms we have here and in general the West. I just realize that the authority here will do whatever is necessary to maintain itself just like there. If single digit deaths is all that it takes then why kill more? It's unlikely the Chinese killed more than they thought necessary. After all, however many they killed, it's what they thought was necessary.

We can debate the rights we feel the Chinese people should have. We can debate which side is right and which is not. But we shouldn't think authority doing what it did is any different than any other authority.

Re:Tomato Tomato

[similar_name]

Debating rights in China is a different debate than arguing the Chinese authority did anything differently than any other authority. They did what they did not because they were communists, or because they were evil but because they were in charge and wanted it to stay that way.

Everything is relative and there is no good and no evil

Historically and culturally pretty much. I think it's wrong that the government in my country tells people what they can ingest and who they can marry. Others in this country might find it evil that people would want to ingest certain things or marry certain people.

I'm not saying nothing is wrong, but I find the term evil to be a more a supernatural idea and thus subject to the whims of culture. Put simply I think it's wrong to directly affect someone else in a manner they do not want (I could extend that to also thinking it is wrong to not protect someone when you can). Most other things are probably opinion and historically change with time.

Re:Tomato Tomato

[c6gunner]

I mentioned the bases because it is something that causes some people in that area to dislike us.

I'm sure some people dislike you because of the Star Wars prequels. How come you're not mentioning that?

Personally, I think the number one reason most people fight offensively (outside of nationalism) is poverty and hunger.

And you're wrong. There's absolutely zero data to support that conclusion. You harp on about how important it is to understand our enemies, and then completely fail to realize that all 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were educated, well-off men from middle-class-or-better families. You ignore the fact that Bin Laden comes from a family of billionaires.

People fight because the battle gives their lives meaning. Truly poor people don't need that kind of meaning - they're too busy trying to survive. When poor people DO fight, it's usually because they're being paid more to risk their lives than they can make through other means. While that kind of mercenary mentality can be a problem for us, it's the leaders and the true fanatics whom we need to really be concerned with.

It's just that historically terrorists are very interchangeable with rebels.

People use the terms as if they were interchangeable, but they're not. I would never refer to the American "patriots" as "terrorists", for the most part, although the label might fit a few of them; I would never refer to the Taliban as "freedom fighters", because the only freedom they're interested in is their own freedom to impose an oppressive theocracy on others. The terms have very specific meanings, and the bastardization of the language by others is no reason to stop using them. Chastise those who misuse them, if you wish, but don't harp on me for the sins of others.

I haven't seen the Cryps and Bloods defend what they do because they are fighting for their way of life. If they did begin to do that they would move from criminal to some ideological label determined by the very factors I'm bringing up

Not sure about the Cryps and the Bloods, but other criminal organizations certainly have rationalized their actions through various means. But it's irrelevant; I'm completely flabbergasted by you apparent willingness to take such rationalization at face value. Who gives a shit if a rapist wants to call himself a "sex-liberator"? Why should we take such claims seriously?

Terrorists commit terror and are labeled terrorist. The problem is, any fighting force creates terror ...

That is, of course, bullshit. If you're going to take that tack, you may as well argue that parents who yell at their kids in order to discipline them are terrorists. It's ridiculous. There's no single clear-cut definition of terrorism, but there is a clear difference between armed factions which use force in a controlled manner in order to overthrow illegitimate authority or maintain legitimate control, and armed factions which use indiscriminate force in order to control others. If I beat the shit out of you because you're threatening to behead my girlfriend unless she wears a veil, I'm not a terrorist, despite the fact that you may feel terror the next time you run into me.

When Osama Bin Laden et al. were fighting our enemy, the Russians, we called them freedom fighters. When they fight us, they're terrorists. Same people, the only thing that really changed is who they're fighting.

Again, nonsense. We never supported the Taliban - they didn't take over Afghanistan until the mid-90's. They didn't even exist until the early 90s.

More importantly, though ... when the Russians invaded Afghanistan, millions of Afghans fled. When NATO invaded Afghanistan, millions of Afghans returned. To compare the two is sheer lunacy. The Afghans fighting against Russian rule weren't terrorizing their own co

Re:Tomato Tomato

[spinkham]

US has free press and open courts.

China has controlled press and closed courts.

Otherwise, politicians try to get away with just as much crap in both countries.

Re:Tomato Tomato

[c6gunner]

Citation needed, sir / ma'am.

The first enslaved people in the Americas were American Indians.

I said "in the US", not "in the Americas". Although technically speaking, I'm wrong, because the US wasn't a country at the time when Anthony Johnson won the right to keep a slave for life. Still, the gyst was correct :)

Re:Tomato Tomato

[the eric conspiracy]

The news still covers these events, and in fact the accounts are more available due to the internet. Just go to Google News and see it yourself.

Re:Tomato Tomato

[brit74]

I think you need to go back and rethink your position.

Again, I'm not siding with them. I'm merely pointing out that the word terrorist is a very subjective one and has hardly any objective meaning. A terrorist is simply 1. Someone fighting a force much larger than themselves and thus has to fight 'dirty'. and 2. Someone who is fighting for a cause you don't believe in.

Uh, huh. [sarcasm]And "theft" is just a word conjured up by the "authorities" meant to villify the redistrubution of wealth.[/sarcasm] I still don't understand how people in 2011 don't understand the meaning of the word "terrorism". Terrorism requires killing, kidnapping, or threats against the general population - and must be directly aimed at the general civilian population (accidentally killing civilians in part of an attack against military targets doesn't count).

Saying that "terrorist" is merely "fighting dirty for something you don't believe in" already put a pretty big gap between a sign-holding protester and bomb-planting terrorist, since protesters aren't "fighting dirty". The word "fighting dirty" is also a very generous way of describing a terrorist. Creating false news stories is "fighting dirty". Blowing up an enemy's railroad lines is "fighting dirty". Using submarines to destroy military ships is "fighting dirty". But none of those things are "terrorism" (unless you're targeting civilian railroad lines with the intention of killing unarmed civilians, of course).

While you're right that authorities might try to mislabel people, that doesn't mean labels are impossible to apply to people. Second, you say "everything is relative", but it's not. If it were, then why don't you come out and say that Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr are no better or worse than Nazis. If you can't say it, then you have to admit that *not* everything is relative. If you're going to insist that everything is relative, then you're going to have to throw up your hands and say, "I've been lead to believe that Ghandi and MLK are better than Nazis, but clearly, that's just my subjective viewpoint and one that is shared by many people, but we can't claim anything approaching truth. Nazis, KKK, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Hitler, Saddam, peaceful protesters, serial killers - it's all relative, we can't really say if any of them are better than any others."

The other thing that comes out of your viewpoint is this: if you're right, then why shouldn't the US simply nuke the entire Middle East? Hey, if history is written by the winners and everything is relative, then who's to say that's wrong?

Personally, I find the "everything is relative" camp to be people who are simply frustrated by the status quo and decide to stick their heads in the sand to avoid all the hard thinking stuff while lobbing some insults at the authorities. It's not a well thought out viewpoint, although people try to use that pretense.

Re:Tomato Tomato

[similar_name]

Just because I think things are relative doesn't mean I don't have my own viewpoint. Man why is it when I bring up that history is full of examples of calling small fighting groups rebels or terrorists based on which side your on I'm sticking my head in the sand. I'm just recognizing that terrorist has been used either way. It's easy to say in hindsight that the word was misused and that is really my point.

Had the Nazis won would we be talking about how bad the Nazis are? Probably not. There are plenty of people in the south that would put the KKK ahead of Martin Luther King Jr. but I wouldn't. Acknowledging there are different viewpoints is an entirely different thing than defending or supporting those viewpoints.

Unfortunately, the mere suggestion that someone else has there own reasons for doing things has launched many posts telling me how wrong I am. The mere fact that people disagree is my point. I'm simply stating that throughout history people have disagreed about what's bad and what's good and what a terrorists is.

The British called our founding fathers terrorists. Does that mean I agree with that NO. It simply means that throughout history the only consistent thing terrorist has meant is a small force fighting a much larger one and unfortunately, vastly overwhelmed forces often resort to targeting civilians. Additionally, it wasn't even until relatively recent (with respect to human history) that there was a separation of military and civilian targets. Atlanta was burned to the ground during the Civil War. Was that terrorism? The Nazis sent rockets into London. Was that terrorism? I would say so, but it was usually just called war. A uniformed openly state sponsored army does not usually get labeled a terrorist.

The fact that there are people who think the complete opposite of what you (or I) do makes these terms relative to the people using them. That alone makes no statement as to what's right or wrong in and of itself. Sorry, I even brought it up here. We can pretend that good and bad have always meant the same thing throughout history, that's fine I won't debate it anymore. All our enemies are just evil, it's as simple as that.

Missing the point

[itchythebear]

I don't think the main issue with Tiananmen Square was that there was bloodshed but instead it was the oppression of freedom of speech, which is something that most certainly DID happen.

Osama

[gmuslera]

Remember when at first the news said that he had hostages, was armed, and the marines had to kill him, and then the truth slowly come out, still leaving the 1st impression?

Re:Osama

[Seumas]

To be fair, my average fellow American didn't stick around to listen long enough to updated reports. At "Osama was killed", they spent the next week flopping their dicks in the air and smashing beer cans on their heads while running around in public with giant foam fingers chanting "USA USA USA" like retards.

Re:Osama

[jon_doh2.0]

You have a gift for descriptive writing.

Re:Osama

[c6gunner]

Naw, that was just the people on the right side of the political spectrum. The other half of the country spent the next few weeks in mourning, after which they logged on to slashdot in order to post whiny comments and mod each-other "insightful".

Re:Osama

[Seumas]

Thank you for aptly demonstrating my point, that there were only imbecilic responses from "both sides" devoid of any abstract thought or critical thinking.

Re:Osama

[Anonymous Coward]

And that was exactly the right reaction, for a fucktard like Bin Laden.

Re:Osama

[c6gunner]

You're welcome :)

Re:Osama

[doug]

I don't get your point. What is it that you are trying to say? The original poster said that Marines were involved. I have not seen anything mentioning the Marines, just Navy SEALs, so I pointed that out. Now you're saying that we can call the Marines "Navy", which might technically be true, but is irrelevant. It is not accurate to call SEALs "Marines".

Bullshit

[Vinegar Joe]

My wife was in Tiananmen.

Re:Bullshit

[zill]

My wife shot bin Laden in the left eye. What's your point?

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew someone who was there as well 'Yeah it got pretty bad. It is why I left and came here."

I also guess all that news footage of guns being shot and tanks rolling around were bs too..

Re:Bullshit

[MacGyver2210]

Fuck you! My friend died hacking Windows 98!

Re:Bullshit

[Bing Tsher E]

Being as I just downloaded a torrent of OSX to try installing in VirtualBox, you just scared the fuck out of me.

Re:Not inside the square.

[taiwanjohn]

> What I remember is the video of a protester standing down a column of tanks inside the square.

Actually the "tank man" footage was shot from the Beijing Hotel, looking WSW down Changan E. Rd.. The vantage point is (IIRC) a few hundred yards east of the square.

You forget the enemy

[SmallFurryCreature]

Lets take another event in history, the holocaust. Everyone knows Anne Frank but where did she die? Now lets assume that the average person answers Auschwitz. You would the argue, let it be. Since the horror of that place is well known it can't hurt in convincing people how horrible it was right by giving the millions a human face in the form of a young girl?

But there are evil people in this world who would use your convenient lie to cast doubt on everything. Holocaust deniers take any tiny little detail they can and manipulate it until it fits their twisted agenda.

The truth of the tianamen square masacre is that violence happened but not a mass killing on the square itself (the article says no bloodshed wrongly, no bloodshed means not a single drop of blood was shed) but rather outside it once the students had started to flee and afterwards as countless disappeared.

If the lie becomes truth then it can be disproven and with it ALL the facts brought into doubt. ONLY the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth can set you free.

Your feelings are dead on, the evil will use this to cast doubt on what happened but you can't fight their lies with more lies.

Re:You're arguing over a rhetorical artifact...

[taiwanjohn]

Since it's called the "Tiananmen Massacre" everybody assumes it happened in Tiananmen Square, when really this was just an easy shorthand, since it was a response to the Tiananmen Protest, which had been going on for several weeks by then.

I know several people who were there that night, and this "new revelation" is nothing new, as you said.

Re:Turn of that other century [was: Re:Tomato Toma

[similar_name]

Yes, I meant to put 20th in between the and century. Thanks for clearing that up though, I'm sure it caused great confusion.

Re:Turn of that other century [was: Re:Tomato Toma

[similar_name]

Also by 60s I meant 1960s.

Re:Factoid

[omfgnosis]

I've never heard it used that way. I have, however, heard "truism" used that way, and I'm not sure it really means that either.

The End Of An Era

[jdogalt]

...G...

Rubbish

[Anonymous Coward]

This is rubbish. Of course you can specify what kind of crushing it is in Chinese. The character ya alone is ambiguous, but by using it in a 2 character compound word (as most words are in Chinese) you can easily be more specific.

It's almost exactly the same as in English. You can have ambiguity or you can be specific.

There's a Chinese guy on Chinese /. right now writing "Ah, but in English they say 'They used tanks to crush the protestors', but in English 'crush' is vague. It could mean that the tanks physically squashed them, or that they used shells to fire on the protesters, or that their presence alone with police alongside was enough".

Underestimation

[janimal]

The one thing that I find constant in accounts of massacres at the time they happen is that they get underestimated. Usually, first-hand accounts by the well-connected are based on observations from safe vantage points or from second-hand information. Also, if you spend a lot of time in a safe place, you end up being very careful to not overstate anything and sound alarmist, lest you are seen as panic-stricken or sensationalist.... or wrong.

So, in accounts of how regimes treat their victims, I tend to believe the more brutal accounts of what happened. It's hard to underestimate how cruel people can be toward eachother.

My how times have changed...

[LynnwoodRooster]

Here I am in Shanghai, nice and early Monday morning, reading /. about the Tiananmen square massacre on an open Internet connection in China - no VPN, no firewall, no blocking. The times they are a changin...

Re:My how times have changed...

[sydneyfong]

They don't block English sites as much.

where is this footage?

[jcarr]

Please find it -- it doesn't seem to exist anywhere on earth. I remember watching it live on TV, but I don't remember seeing anyone get run over by a tank.

The account of one diplomat shows something?

[janimal]

Since when does one eyewitness account of some diplomat (usually these are not the freedom fighter types, to put it mildly) "show" anything?

Eyewitnesses confirmed bloodshed in the Square!

[Lanterns]

Since when was Wikileaks the authorized source of truth? Eyewitnesses and journalists present at the massacre have stated that there was bloodshed at the Square. Why should I believe some anonymous Wikileaks document over other testimony? For example, Chinese-Canadian Journalist Jan Wong wrote about the incident in detail in her book "Red China Blues." Granted, she could have been lying, but give me a reason I should believe Wikileaks over her. A few sources: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/interviews/wong.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTWBDMen7bo

Re:Eyewitnesses confirmed bloodshed in the Square!

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, Chinese-Canadian Journalist Jan Wong wrote about the incident in detail in her book "Red China Blues." Granted, she could have been lying, but give me a reason I should believe Wikileaks over her

I don't think she's lying, but the fact is she's been Wong all her life.

Uh so?

[Alistair Hutton]

Why is this even news? It's always been known that the "Lie by Truth" was that there was no blood shed in Tienanmen square. But everyone knows the violence happened in the side streets and around the rest of the city.

Hmm...

[aztecmonkey]

I was in Tiananmen Square 6 months after the army rolled in on the Pro-Democracy protestors. The steps surrounding the monument were crushed in spots, presumably by tanks or some other heavy vehicle, and I remember seeing bullet holes in the monument itself. I went back around the anniversary, and they wouldn't let anyone into the square at all. A year later I went back a third time and everything was repaired. If those weren't bullet holes, what were they?

Re:Factoid

[omfgnosis]

My dictionary reads: "a brief or trivial item of news or information". And the meaning of a word isn't "reality"; language is inherently social, and words are given meaning socially. Wikipedia (and my dictionary for that matter) is not the arbiter of reality, just a source (among many) intended to catalogue it.