What exactly is your claim? I can perhaps infer you are trying to make the claim that no people were killed in Tiananmen Square? Maybe this is true, but it is sidestepping the fact that most of the sources you link to state that the PLA killed people in or around Tiananmen Square in response to political activity.

I am not plugged into this community, so I have no idea what the purpose of your post is, but I can dig into the linked articles and find specific quotes that confirm that the PLA killed people around the area.

Governments in general employ tactics that find pointless, incorrect, or inconsequential inconsistencies to try to poke holes in inconvenient narratives, which is what I suspect the line of quotes is about.

I will admit, I learned something today. I learned that people were not killed IN the square, but OUTSIDE the square.

Does it really matter if the government killed people in the square or outside the square? The fact is, they killed people extrajudicially, at least according to your links.

Telegraph:

The cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and released exclusively by The Daily Telegraph, partly confirm the Chinese government's account of the early hours of June 4, 1989, which has always insisted that soldiers did not massacre demonstrators inside Tiananmen Square.

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.

You quote

CBS NEWS: “We saw no bodies, injured people, ambulances, or medical personnel — in short, nothing to even suggest, let alone prove, that a “massacre” had occurred in [Tiananmen Square]”

From the very same article:

Some have found it uncomfortable that all this conforms with what the Chinese government has always claimed, perhaps with a bit of sophistry: that there was no "massacre in Tiananmen Square."

But there's no question many people were killed by the army that night around Tiananmen Square, and on the way to it — mostly in the western part of Beijing. Maybe, for some, comfort can be taken in the fact that the government denies that, too.

You quote:

BBC NEWS: “I was one of the foreign journalists who witnessed the events that night. There was no massacre on Tiananmen Square”

That text does not exist in the linked article. You changed it without any indication that you did it.

Here is the actual text:

Such was the case with the massacre in Beijing on 3 and 4 June, 1989. I was one of the foreign journalists who witnessed the events that night.

We got the story generally right, but on one detail I and others conveyed the wrong impression. There was no massacre on Tiananmen Square.

Your text from NY Times:

NY TIMES: In June 13, 1989, NY Times reporter Nicholas Kristof – who was in Beijing at that time – wrote, “State television has even shown film of students marching peacefully away from the [Tiananmen] square shortly after dawn as proof that they [protesters] were not slaughtered.” In that article, he also debunked an unidentified student protester who had claimed in a sensational article that Chinese soldiers with machine guns simply mowed down peaceful protesters in Tiananmen Square.

Here you are trying to emphasize the claim “[protesters] were not slaughtered”? You make no specific statement, so I can only respond with this quote from the same article.

State television has even shown film of students marching peacefully away from the square shortly after dawn as proof that they were not slaughtered. The disagreement is partly one about the definition of the square. … Troops fired on civilians in many parts of the city, but the shooting was concentrated along the Avenue of Eternal Peace, or Changan Avenue, which runs on the north side of the square. There was heavy shooting in the Muxidi district to the west of Tiananmen Square, and there were also many casualties along the Avenue of Eternal Peace to the immediate east of the square, as well as on streets to the south of the square.

This reporter saw troops fire on and kill people on the Avenue of Eternal Peace on the northern part of the square as well as some who were on a segment of the square just north of the avenue, near the Tiananmen Gate. But there is no firm indication that troops fired on the students occupying the monument in the middle of the square.

Reuters:

As to body count: I saw several people, young men, lying on flatbed tricycles being carried away from the square. They were inert and covered in blood. Dead or wounded, I have no idea. On the afternoon of June 4, I saw people fall on Changan Avenue as troops opened fire on them. I have no idea if they were wounded, killed, or simply fainting.

How many people died that night in Beijing? What was the price of the years of superficial political stability that followed?

Most of the killing did not take place on or near the Square, that is clear. The official line, first espoused by Communist Party propaganda guru Yuan Mu a couple of nights later on national television, was that 23 people had died on the night of June 3/4. It was ludicrous. Nobody who was in Beijing at that time believed it.

Wikileaks:

6. THE GALLOS POSITIONED THEMSELVES NEAR THE RED CROSS STATION AT THE FOOT OF THE STEPS TO THE MUSEUM. INITIALLY NOT MUCH WAS HAPPENING IN THE SQUARE AS MOST OF THE FIGHTING WAS TAKING PLACE TO THE WEST. BODIES AND WOUNDED, HOWEVER, BEGAN TO ARRIVE AT THE RED CROSS STATION INDICATING THE EXTENT OF THE FIGHTING AND THE FACT THAT REAL BULLETS WERE BEING USED. AS THE MILITARY BEGAN TO REACH THE OUTSKIRTS OF THE SQUARE AND SHOTS WERE FIRED IN THE VICINITY OF THE RED CROSS STATION, MRS. GALLO DECIDED SHE WANTED TO LEAVE. THE GALLOS MADE THEIR WAY BACK TO THEIR CAR AND DROVE BACK TO THEIR APARTMENT IN SANLITUN. GALLO DROPPED OFF HIS WIFE AND DROVE BACK TO THE SQUARE, AGAIN PARKING EAST OF THE MUSEUM.

I thought this article was a fun read: https://www.liberationnews.org/tiananmen-the-massacre-that-wasnt/

On one avenue in western Beijing, demonstrators torched an entire military convoy of more than 100 trucks and armored vehicles. Aerial pictures of conflagration and columns of smoke have powerfully bolstered the [Chinese] government’s arguments that the troops were victims, not executioners. Other scenes show soldiers’ corpses and demonstrators stripping automatic rifles off unresisting soldiers,” admitted the Washington Post in a story that was favorable to anti-government opposition on June 12, 1989.

This is not flattering to the PLA, that they let 100 vehicles get torched by some random ad hoc insurrection in their own capital.

Commenting to have a link to this, nice job on rounding up sources

You can also watch the documentary "the gate of heavenly peace" on YouTube. It kinda stirred up controversy "on both sides". That doesn't make it necessarily correct, but it at least shows you where they stand.

OK BUT WHAT ABOUT SOCIAL CREDIT SCORE WINNIE THE POOH COVID??

Really tempted to start a rednote account that just does the equivalent of Radio Free Asia but on behalf of the CPC.

i love how this is like wayyy longer than the lib copypasta

Those peaceful protestors in Beijing burned military tanks and cars, stole weapons from soldiers, and even killed troops. You can literally read the western-biased Wikipedia for this information. It's only hard to find if you have no interest in being truthful.

one thing any american who considers themselves a "free thinker" (as most americans do, i would never describe myself so pretentiously personally) needs to ask themselves is why, for every 1 social media post you see about kent state, you see a thousand more about “tank man”. imo there’s only one reason for that but i would be curious to actually point that out to a china hater and see what conclusion they come to about it. would be interesting to see the gears work to explain away what’s blatantly going on in that situation

100% correct comrade. i also think it's frustrating that any time you point this out to someone "you're repeating stuff you heard on tv" they take extreme offense and say "I DON'T WATCH TV! I DON'T WATCH X Y OR Z CHANNEL YOU THINK I DO! IM AN INDEPENDENT THINKER!" and then you find out if that's even true about them not watching tv, they're getting their news from the fox news facebook page or the CNN youtube channel instead. real maveriks getting their information.

When US pigs crack down on a protest they're protecting private property, and as we all know property rights matter more than civil rights.

yeah, must have to do with too much black and white media consumption in place of actual political theory. they think someone can only be bad if they make angry faces and explicitly say "i am the bad guy. i am going to so very bad things to good people who do not deserve it, for i am bad"

President Diaz gave them orders ahead of time to shoot, and the Chief of Staff of the Military had snipers in the buildings with orders to open fire once people ran. Meanwhile it took like a day to even bring in armed soldiers at Tiananmen even after MONTHS of protesting.

From "Our Man in the CIA" by Morley page 269-270

known as the Olympic Battalion, had their own instructions. They were to wear civilian clothes with a white glove on the left hand and post themselves in the doorways of the Chihuahua building. When they got the signal, in the form of a flare, they were to prevent the entrance or exit of anyone to the plaza while the student leaders were being detained. Finally, a group of police officers got orders to arrest the leaders of the national strike council.

What virtually no one knew until more than thirty years later was that Luis Gutierrez Oropeza, the chief of staff of the Mexican military, had posted ten men with guns on the upper floor of the Chihuahua building and given them orders to shoot into the crowd. He was acting on orders of Diaz Ordaz, according to a revelatory account published in 1999 in the news¬ weekly Proceso, by Julio Scherer and Carlos Mosivais, two of the country's best-known journalists. Oropeza was the link between Diaz Ordaz and Echeverria, according to Mario Moya Palencia, a Mexican political insider at the time. Oropeza was also a friend and occasional dinner guest of Win Scott's. He might have been a LITEMPO agent. There is no evidence that he acted on the CIA’s behest in October 1968.

A wave of people ran to the far end of the plaza, only to meet a line of oncoming soldiers. They ran the other way — into the free-fire zone. It was a “closed circle of hell,” said historian Krauze: a “terror operation.” The shooting went on for an hour and then began to diminish. It started to rain. The tanks opened fire. “The hail of bullets fired at the Chihuahua building became so intense that around seven p.m. a large section of the building caught on fire,” wrote reporter Jorge Aviles of El Universal. ‘All the floors from the tenth to the thirteenth floors were enveloped in flames and many families were forced to leave the unit, amid the heavy gunfire, carrying the children in their arms and risking their lives.” Inside the floors of the hallways were sticky with blood. The shooting continued until eleven o’clock that night. Five thousand soldiers fired a total of 15,000 rounds. Two thousand people were arrested, many of them stripped, beaten, and abused. Lights were extinguished, telephone service was cut off, photographers were forbid¬ den from taking pictures, and even ambulances were turned away

Diaz also was not so much on the payroll as he was literally besties with Winston Scott, the CIA chief in Mexico.

Scott's agents were identified in CIA files by specific numbers. LITEMPO-1 was Emilio Bolanos, a nephew of Gustavo Díaz Ordaz, Minister of Gobernación and then President in the 1960s. Díaz Ordaz was LITEMPO-2. Like his predecessor Adolfo Lopez Mateos, he was a personal friend of Scott's. Both men attended Scott's wedding to his third wife in December 1962, with Lopez Mateos standing in as padrino, or chief witness, to the ceremony.

We know of 4 consecutive Mexican presidents confirmed CIAasset status, and at least 1 explicitly being CIA before becoming president.

And yet the violence didn’t even occur in the square, it was over on Chang’an avenue iirc, involving a completely different group of people than the student protestors. So it’s more like, “there were violent clashes elsewhere in NYC but literally nothing happened at OWS.”

my posting was too powerful. even if i change IPs and make a new account on a new windows user it gets instantly banned. not sure how reddit does that.