Slashdot Mirror
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."
They waited until people were located outside the square itself before the slaughter began.
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.
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.
If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
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.
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?
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 /.
My wife was in Tiananmen.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
>> 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?
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.
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
http://m.earth.org.uk/
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.
> 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.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Also by 60s I meant 1960s.
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.
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?
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.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
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 ;)
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".
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.