This shit has seriously gone on too long. People who continue to cling to the "10,000 dead crushed by tanks hosed i to the gutter" bs are cranks. It's jews control the banks, chemtrails, the earth is flat, the moon isn't real level of crank shit and unless you're feeling very indulgent and someone is asking in good faith it can be dismissed as equally serious to that kind of crank shit.
I think this way of framing it to libs -- a focus on the facts themselves, and how deadly violence by the protesters led to a deadly response -- is better than focusing on what is or isn't a "massacre." It's easy to get bogged down in semantics and hypotheticals when talking about if certain facts fit a definition. The facts themselves should take center stage, and keeping the discussion focused on them leads people to question whether "massacre" is fitting on their own.
I specifically use "insurgents" because that's what they were - cia backed insurgents trying to escalate who attacked unarmed soldiers and bured them alive. They weren't part of the protest movement, they were parasites trying to hijack it. The protest movement was mostly Maoist, like there were all kinds of issues being raised, but it was primarily a Maoist movement protesting Dengist market liberalization. The Insurgents weren'ty part of that.
That's a good point, too, though maybe something like "instigators" or "hijackers" would be even better. I'm trying to put on my lib hat to see what would cause unproductive debates over language, and "come on, there wasn't an insurgency" seems like an easy one to avoid.
The George Floyd protests were also recent enough and popular enough to provide some good examples of how many protests don't involve everyone acting in lockstep, and their very nature invites all sorts of people to try and steer the crowd to their preferred ends.