Western journalists on the ground claimed that they saw no bodies or blood in Tiananmen Square minutes after the supposed massacre. I'm sure you have a good explanation for that as well?
The Chinese government never denied that people died that night, but they denied the circumstances described by Western media. It's telling that the perspective told by some student leaders and protestors was not corroborated by Western journalists on the ground. It's even more telling that those same perspectives were not corroborated by other student leaders. Being precise is important. It's just as important when talking about Tiananmen Square as it is when talking about current events in Gaza, for its undeniable that people died and providing an accurate story of what happened is essential for preserving the value of the truth and not allowing the truth to be diminished. Don't tarnish their story by making up bullshit that generates more clicks and more outrage.
The facts tell us that soldiers died in riots before June 4th and that civilians died by gunfire on June 4th. The eyewitness accounts by journalists tell us that it's unlikely that many (if any) people died on Tiananmen Square. The full video of "tank man" shows that the tanks stopped for him and that he was dragged away by other protestors (and certainly wasn't run over by a tank on video).
Specifics are important. I'm not telling you to fully believe the official Chinese government statement on the issue. I don't. In fact, I struggle to think of any official government statement that I'm willing to believe without question. I'm simply telling you to look at facts, to look at video evidence, to look at unbiased third-parties, and to ask yourself what narrative makes the most sense. Then, maybe you'll consider what drew you to your previous conclusion.
An additional point, part of why I never tend to believe what any government claims prima facie is due to the selective nature and sort of lie by omission by such statements. I find such statements not to be false per se, but overwhelmingly lacking and unsatisfying. Much of what they say on first thought is true, but the details are left out and those are the juicy bits I tend to want to know most.
Western journalists on the ground claimed that they saw no bodies or blood in Tiananmen Square minutes after the supposed massacre. I'm sure you have a good explanation for that as well?
The Chinese government never denied that people died that night, but they denied the circumstances described by Western media. It's telling that the perspective told by some student leaders and protestors was not corroborated by Western journalists on the ground. It's even more telling that those same perspectives were not corroborated by other student leaders. Being precise is important. It's just as important when talking about Tiananmen Square as it is when talking about current events in Gaza, for its undeniable that people died and providing an accurate story of what happened is essential for preserving the value of the truth and not allowing the truth to be diminished. Don't tarnish their story by making up bullshit that generates more clicks and more outrage.
It is now considered unlikely than anyone was actually killed in Tiananmen Square itself. But people on the streets of Beijing spread their impression -- inaccurate but fully understandable -- that Tiananmen Square had been washed in the blood of thousands of innocent students.
But we saw no bodies, injured people, ambulances or medical personnel — in short, nothing to even suggest, let alone prove, that a "massacre" had recently occurred in that place.
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.
I don’t remember seeing the students leave the monument, although they did — filing off to the south as a result of an agreement with the PLA commanders while the tanks and troops entered the square from the north. But I remember clearly watching the tanks and armored cars move in orderly columns down the square, riding over the tents and the debris. It was later said by some that they bulldozed through sleeping students, but I don’t believe it. No one could still have been asleep in those tents after that night.
ALTHOUGH GUNFIRE COULD BE HEARD, GALLO SAID THAT APART FROM SOME BEATING OF STUDENTS, THERE WAS NO MASS FIRING INTO THE CROWD OF STUDENTS AT THE MONUMENT. WHEN POLOFF MENTIONED SOME REPORTEDLY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF MASSACRES AT THE MONUMENT WITH AUTOMATIC WEAPONS, GALLO SAID THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH SLAUGHTER. ONCE AGREEMENT WAS REACHED FOR THE STUDENTS TO WITHDRAW, LINKING HANDS TO FORM A COLUMN, THE STUDENTS LEFT THE SQUARE THROUGH THE SOUTHEAST CORNER. ESSENTIALLY EVERYONE, INCLUDING GALLO, LEFT. THE FEW THAT ATTEMPTED TO REMAIN BEHIND WERE BEATEN AND DRIVEN TO JOIN THE END OF THE DEPARTING PROCESSION. ONCE OUTSIDE THE SQUARE, THE STUDENTS HEADED WEST ON QIANMEN DAJIE WHILE GALLO HEADED EAST TO HIS CAR. THEREFORE, HE COULD NOT COMMENT ON REPORTS THAT STUDENTS WERE AMBUSHED AND SLAUGHTERED IN THE ALLEY JUST WEST OF THE SQUARE NEAR THE BEIJING CONCERT HALL.
The facts tell us that soldiers died in riots before June 4th and that civilians died by gunfire on June 4th. The eyewitness accounts by journalists tell us that it's unlikely that many (if any) people died on Tiananmen Square. The full video of "tank man" shows that the tanks stopped for him and that he was dragged away by other protestors (and certainly wasn't run over by a tank on video).
Specifics are important. I'm not telling you to fully believe the official Chinese government statement on the issue. I don't. In fact, I struggle to think of any official government statement that I'm willing to believe without question. I'm simply telling you to look at facts, to look at video evidence, to look at unbiased third-parties, and to ask yourself what narrative makes the most sense. Then, maybe you'll consider what drew you to your previous conclusion.
An additional point, part of why I never tend to believe what any government claims prima facie is due to the selective nature and sort of lie by omission by such statements. I find such statements not to be false per se, but overwhelmingly lacking and unsatisfying. Much of what they say on first thought is true, but the details are left out and those are the juicy bits I tend to want to know most.
Now THAT'S a lot of copium. There were tanks there. Why bring tanks to peaceful protest?
Read the sources. It was not a "peaceful protest".
See my comment to your identical comment