The only people still pushing the original shit are anticommunists and racists because it’s more convenient to their goals to perpetuate it.
Try actually listening and learning the actual facts from people in the left and then you won’t run into this problem. You’re getting banned and ridiculed by actual leftists because you’re further right and less educated on this topic than the fucking media of far right conservative tories ffs.
This is what happens when you get your political education from fucking reddit.
See this is just a complete refusal to engage with the topic or learn anything. Have you grown as a human being at all in the last 10 years or did you just decide one day that you have achieved political nirvana and there is never anything else you need to understand or expand your knowledge of? Your refusal to actually learn anything is a deep character flaw and a huge personal failure.
Numerous military buses, trucks, armored vehicles, and tanks being burned by the “peaceful” protesters. Sometimes the soldiers were allowed to escape, and sometimes they were brutally killed by the protesters. Numerous protesters were armed with Molotov cocktails and even guns.
The official report of the Chinese government from 1989 (translated here) shows that more than 1000 military and police vehicles were burned by rioters. And 200+ soldiers and policemen were murdered. Just imagine how much restraint the military and the police had shown.
Wait, how could the protesters kill so many soldiers? Because, until the very end, Chinese soldiers were unarmed. Most of the times, they didn’t even have helmets or batons.
What exactly happened in Beijing in 1989 that lead to this bloody affair?
The answer lies with two key figures: General Secretary Hu Yaobang, and Ambassador James Lilley.
Hu Yaobang was a member of the communist party of China and was one of the three major rightist-reformers that set China on the path its on today, the other two being Zhao Ziyang, and Deng Xiaoping respectively. Hu Yaobang as a reformer was also a spokesman for the intelligentsia and by the end of his life was well-beloved by the youth of China (we’re talking below 30 here, folks) therefore when he passed away the youth of China organized public grieving events with the largest occurring in Beijing. This is to say if Hu didn’t die from old age that year, none of this would’ve happened that year. This is to also say this event had nothing to do with “freedom” or “democracy” or whatever pigshit your favorite rush limburger propagandist spoon feeds you, it was a funeral service that was hijacked to unseat the Chinese government - which so coincidentally is a speciality of the agency the second person we’re talking about.
Ambassador James Lilley, the son of an american expat oil executive for Standard Oil, was a CIA agent operating in east Asia from 1951 to 1981 with little officially known about him (I know for a fact he’s fucked around Korea and Laos, so it’s not a stretch to say he’s likely been involved with every conflict that occured during his official career). In his “post” CIA career he’s acted as a diplomatic liason to the provice of Taiwan, a teacher to future state department ghouls, and “helped” South Korea end its military dicatorship by helping the military win the election “democratically”, and abruptly five days after the death of General Secretary Hu Yaobang James Lilley was appointed as the US Ambassador to China by also former CIA ghoul and president of the United States George H. W. Bush. What an astounding coincidence.
I’ve had my problems with hexbear but you’re literally doing the meme of going 👉😩👈 LALALALALA when someone actually backs up their claims with sources. Like why even bother asking for sources if you’re just going to dismiss them as “bad” no matter the quality?
You all must be the biggest fucking rubes on the planet if you’re seriously citing a site which claims that CNN has a left wing bias
How do you function? Do you just lose money on scams 24/7? (donating to your political parties counts)
I have a lot of issues with sources I know are right wing because they often spin things in ridiculous ways. Despite that, there’s so much censorship on the internet the only places to look are on the fringes or in other languages.
she also cited and linked to all the original sources which the worldaffairs site used, packed full of famous CCP-shill state-owned-media sources like: the BBC, Reuters, the Washington Post, CBS, the Wall Street Journal, etcetera
It’s literally quoting WSJ. Some liberal thinktank complaining about it is not relevant, even less so a think tank so vapid as to tacitly equate centrism with objectivity.
That’s the difference with you. I learn in universities, reading reports and works. Not on echo chambers on the web. I just like to argue with people on the internet in a language I don’t master while I’m in the train.
Unlike you I actually have 2 degrees. If you engaged with this topic in this way in a university the history professor would fail you.
You don’t give a fuck about sources, evidence, or anything. You are utterly closed to new information. You are one of the most deeply propagandised people on the planet, from the most deeply propagandised population on the planet.
This is a bad argument, the telegraph reports something that someone said based on incomplete information at the time and suddenly their take is worth something because it agrees with your own views?
The telegraph reports on the leaked cables from wikileaks which confirm that diplomats had no reason to believe a massacre was happening, if you’re going to debatelord at least pretend you finished reading.
'even tory shitheads have given up on this line, why are ‘leftists’ pushing it?
The fact that the Tories are reporting on it doesn’t make it a measure of if it’s true or not- they’re reporting on something from wikileaks which directly contradicts the entire western narrative. They’re certainly not doing it because it’s ideologically consistent with their goals.
Media and news reporting is going to be heavily filtered by what advertisers will tolerate- which isn’t necessarily going to be factual or accurate either.
Generally when people admit things that are politically inconvenient to them it is worth listening. If Trump admitted he did tax evasion would you be like “nuh-uh he is lying! He’s a liar he didn’t do tax evasion!”
I’ll ignore the fact that you’re lying about what got you banned for this response.
Even the western far right media has moved on from the original Tiananmen narrative, which it acknowledges was false. The actual events played out more accurately to exactly what China has always said they were.
The only people still pushing the original shit are anticommunists and racists because it’s more convenient to their goals to perpetuate it.
Try actually listening and learning the actual facts from people in the left and then you won’t run into this problem. You’re getting banned and ridiculed by actual leftists because you’re further right and less educated on this topic than the fucking media of far right conservative tories ffs.
This is what happens when you get your political education from fucking reddit.
Learn properly: https://archive.ph/24zzF
You’re just embarrassing.
See this is just a complete refusal to engage with the topic or learn anything. Have you grown as a human being at all in the last 10 years or did you just decide one day that you have achieved political nirvana and there is never anything else you need to understand or expand your knowledge of? Your refusal to actually learn anything is a deep character flaw and a huge personal failure.
I’m going to repost something from @Alaskaball@hexbear.net, maybe you’ll read some of it.
The Chinese description of the events leading up to and the day of the protests are very probably the closest thing to accurate that exists.
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]”
BBC NEWS: “I was one of the foreign journalists who witnessed the events that night. There was no massacre on Tiananmen Square”
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.
REUTERS: Graham Earnshaw was in the Tiananmen Square on the night of June 3. He didn’t leave the square until the morning of June 4th. He wrote in his memoir that the military came, negotiated with the students and made everyone (including himself) leave peacefully; and that nobody died in the square.
200-300 people died in clashes in various parts of Beijing, around June 4 — and about half of those who died were soldiers and cops..
A Wikileaks cable from the US Embassy in Beijing (sent in July 1989) also reveals the eyewitness accounts of a Latin American diplomat and his wife: “They were able to enter and leave the [Tiananmen] square several times and were not harassed by troops. Remaining with students … until the final withdrawal, the diplomat said there were no mass shootings in the square or the monument.”
Numerous military buses, trucks, armored vehicles, and tanks being burned by the “peaceful” protesters. Sometimes the soldiers were allowed to escape, and sometimes they were brutally killed by the protesters. Numerous protesters were armed with Molotov cocktails and even guns.
Wall Street Journal: In an article from June 5, 1989, the Wall Street Journal described some of this violence: “Dozens of soldiers were pulled from trucks, severely beaten and left for dead. At an intersection west of the square, the body of a young soldier, who had been beaten to death, was stripped naked and hung from the side of a bus.”
The official report of the Chinese government from 1989 (translated here) shows that more than 1000 military and police vehicles were burned by rioters. And 200+ soldiers and policemen were murdered. Just imagine how much restraint the military and the police had shown.
Wait, how could the protesters kill so many soldiers? Because, until the very end, Chinese soldiers were unarmed. Most of the times, they didn’t even have helmets or batons.
What exactly happened in Beijing in 1989 that lead to this bloody affair?
The answer lies with two key figures: General Secretary Hu Yaobang, and Ambassador James Lilley.
Hu Yaobang was a member of the communist party of China and was one of the three major rightist-reformers that set China on the path its on today, the other two being Zhao Ziyang, and Deng Xiaoping respectively. Hu Yaobang as a reformer was also a spokesman for the intelligentsia and by the end of his life was well-beloved by the youth of China (we’re talking below 30 here, folks) therefore when he passed away the youth of China organized public grieving events with the largest occurring in Beijing. This is to say if Hu didn’t die from old age that year, none of this would’ve happened that year. This is to also say this event had nothing to do with “freedom” or “democracy” or whatever pigshit your favorite rush limburger propagandist spoon feeds you, it was a funeral service that was hijacked to unseat the Chinese government - which so coincidentally is a speciality of the agency the second person we’re talking about.
Ambassador James Lilley, the son of an american expat oil executive for Standard Oil, was a CIA agent operating in east Asia from 1951 to 1981 with little officially known about him (I know for a fact he’s fucked around Korea and Laos, so it’s not a stretch to say he’s likely been involved with every conflict that occured during his official career). In his “post” CIA career he’s acted as a diplomatic liason to the provice of Taiwan, a teacher to future state department ghouls, and “helped” South Korea end its military dicatorship by helping the military win the election “democratically”, and abruptly five days after the death of General Secretary Hu Yaobang James Lilley was appointed as the US Ambassador to China by also former CIA ghoul and president of the United States George H. W. Bush. What an astounding coincidence.
In an article from Vancouver Sun (17 Sep 1992) described the role of the CIA: “The Central Intelligence Agency had sources among [Tiananmen Square] protesters” … and “For months before [the protests], the CIA had been helping student activists form the anti-government movement.”
Source is hexbear, opinion ignored
I’ve had my problems with hexbear but you’re literally doing the meme of going 👉😩👈 LALALALALA when someone actually backs up their claims with sources. Like why even bother asking for sources if you’re just going to dismiss them as “bad” no matter the quality?
His sources ARE bad, is the issue. Conspiracy blogs is not what I would call worth reading lmao
Only shitty source I saw was wikileaks.
Wall Street Journal, a notorious Hexbear front to push sissypee lies
Except your source is some site named worldaffairs.blog
Let’s just look that up… yep about what I expected, conspiracy drivel
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/world-affairs-blog-bias/
You all must be the biggest fucking rubes on the planet if you’re seriously citing a site which claims that CNN has a left wing bias
How do you function? Do you just lose money on scams 24/7? (donating to your political parties counts)
I have a lot of issues with sources I know are right wing because they often spin things in ridiculous ways. Despite that, there’s so much censorship on the internet the only places to look are on the fringes or in other languages.
Would it make you feel better if I cited a blog that takes lines from other sources out of context to change the message?
I literally don’t care what you cite, I’m just calling out the blog you’re citing now as ridiculous.
she also cited and linked to all the original sources which the worldaffairs site used, packed full of famous CCP-shill state-owned-media sources like: the BBC, Reuters, the Washington Post, CBS, the Wall Street Journal, etcetera
It’s literally quoting WSJ. Some liberal thinktank complaining about it is not relevant, even less so a think tank so vapid as to tacitly equate centrism with objectivity.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-CJB-22543
That’s the difference with you. I learn in universities, reading reports and works. Not on echo chambers on the web. I just like to argue with people on the internet in a language I don’t master while I’m in the train.
Literally the US Army has published videos that claim they were involved in the Tiananmen protests.
Unlike you I actually have 2 degrees. If you engaged with this topic in this way in a university the history professor would fail you.
You don’t give a fuck about sources, evidence, or anything. You are utterly closed to new information. You are one of the most deeply propagandised people on the planet, from the most deeply propagandised population on the planet.
How the fuck are the sources they used “echo chambers on the Web?”
What are your sources then? Or are you just trying to invoke the idea of being so well read to cover up the fact you’re full of shit.
what’s a “primary source”?
These are literally reports, what the fuck are you on about?
Oh hai
🌽
This is a bad argument, the telegraph reports something that someone said based on incomplete information at the time and suddenly their take is worth something because it agrees with your own views?
The telegraph reports on the leaked cables from wikileaks which confirm that diplomats had no reason to believe a massacre was happening, if you’re going to debatelord at least pretend you finished reading.
'even tory shitheads have given up on this line, why are ‘leftists’ pushing it?
Why would anyone give a shit what tories value or dont value? They dont trade in facts.
the british conservative party, famous fans of the Communist Party of China, who are well known for pushing pro-china news stories
It doesnt matter if theyre pro or anti anything. They just dont deal in fact.
They dont stop pushing a narrative because it turned out to be false, they stop if they think it wont bring immediate monetary gains.
What the tories talk about is a measure of what the current grift is for quick cash, not what stories are factual or inaccurate.
The fact that the Tories are reporting on it doesn’t make it a measure of if it’s true or not- they’re reporting on something from wikileaks which directly contradicts the entire western narrative. They’re certainly not doing it because it’s ideologically consistent with their goals.
Media and news reporting is going to be heavily filtered by what advertisers will tolerate- which isn’t necessarily going to be factual or accurate either.
None of that matters if its from the mouth of a tory, dude
If a tory is speaking, it is to trick you into giving them money. You cannot say “this has to be true/false, because the tories said …”
If a tory said it, it was a ploy for cash. Nothing to do with anyone elses ideologies or goals, or reality.
You lot are so unhinged- check out this diplomatic cable describing the tens of thousands of dead. Oh wait it was yet another lie from perfidious Albion.
Generally when people admit things that are politically inconvenient to them it is worth listening. If Trump admitted he did tax evasion would you be like “nuh-uh he is lying! He’s a liar he didn’t do tax evasion!”