Yes, the western media source is still in line with the narrative of other western media sources. That article was mostly for pointing out that one big misconception of things happening in the square. Much of the other stuff, including what you showed, is still anecdotes. People saying what they can remember of what they think they saw. Many people wouldn’t be able to distinguish between a massacre and a war zone. Like I said, what makes something a massacre is more about how it’s carried out than any certain number. Here’s a pretty disturbing photo album.
The purpose of this link is to counter the narrative of the Chinese military attacking peaceful protesters. Note that the vast majority of burning vehicles are army vehicles. Note that the most gruesome images in this collection are of dead soldiers. Including the two of what appears to be a commander who’s been stripped naked, burned, and hung from a noose.
That’s photographic evidence. Evidence that contradicts the idea that it was just a peaceful protest. Yet another seed of doubt on the general accuracy of western reports.
Most of the pictures of the dead are of protesters, and they’re plenty gruesome.
That’s photographic evidence. Evidence that contradicts the idea that it was just a peaceful protest. Yet another seed of doubt on the general accuracy of western reports.
But importantly, do you know the timeline of events leading up to that one soldier being burned and hung up? Probably not, since there aren’t any timestamps for it that I’ve been able to see. When I throw the first image into google translate, it turns some of the writing on the bus into “he killed” and “return blood.”
That’s obviously not a complete or accurate translation, but do you think it might be possible that that particular soldier was killed after committing some crimes of his own? Do you know when and where the violence started, and by who? I’m guessing not, because the whole event is pretty heavily censored by the chinese government. And that censorship is a large part of what makes me think that the government was in the wrong, and that “massacre” is an accurate term for the hundreds of civilians that were killed.
Many people wouldn’t be able to distinguish between a massacre and a war zone. Like I said, what makes something a massacre is more about how it’s carried out than any certain number.
Even if we assume the chinese government was “fighting a war,” they’re sending armed soldiers and tanks into their own cities to fight against mostly unarmed “combatants”. One might say that the use of such overwhelming force in a fairly one-sided battle could be called a massacre.
This will probably be my last reply because this is really not an enjoyable topic of conversation and I don’t know how much more can be said.
For timeline on that picture, it’s clearly daytime so probably at least a couple hours after the events of that night. Agreed that we don’t truly know the motivations that placed him there, but I do think visibly displaying a body with possible signs of torture is in fact more gruesome than the (still gruesome) images of bodies having been placed to the side for later processing (is the best word I can come up with at the moment). Also the 50 ish bodies we see in these photos doesn’t go against china’s official estimate of 241.
About the conflict, I don’t think there was “the use of such overwhelming force”. I haven’t seen any reports claiming that tanks opened fire. There’s evidence of tanks running over things, but not people (though there are reports). The only report I’ve seen of a mounted gun being used was by protesters at soldiers. There isn’t any evidence of protesters being armed, though there are many reports that some had molotov cocktails. It’s also confirmed that there’s at least some involvement by the CIA with the help of the triads. As well as there’s the interview with one of the organizers (who chose not to be there because she didn’t wanted to risk her life) that includes, “What we actually are hoping for is bloodshed”.
All that being said doesn’t mean you have to 100% agree with china’s report, or especially with the Chinese government as they are now. If you care about the truth of what happened, look at the evidence. If you want to guard yourself against propaganda, it should be against all propaganda, not just foreign. Because that’s why the western narrative exists and why it’s so sensationalized. It’s an effort to demonize China and with it socialism as a whole. We should be talking less about China==bad and more about how poorly our own system is treating us.
Yes, the western media source is still in line with the narrative of other western media sources. That article was mostly for pointing out that one big misconception of things happening in the square. Much of the other stuff, including what you showed, is still anecdotes. People saying what they can remember of what they think they saw. Many people wouldn’t be able to distinguish between a massacre and a war zone. Like I said, what makes something a massacre is more about how it’s carried out than any certain number. Here’s a pretty disturbing photo album.
viewer discretion greatly advised
The purpose of this link is to counter the narrative of the Chinese military attacking peaceful protesters. Note that the vast majority of burning vehicles are army vehicles. Note that the most gruesome images in this collection are of dead soldiers. Including the two of what appears to be a commander who’s been stripped naked, burned, and hung from a noose.
That’s photographic evidence. Evidence that contradicts the idea that it was just a peaceful protest. Yet another seed of doubt on the general accuracy of western reports.
Most of the pictures of the dead are of protesters, and they’re plenty gruesome.
But importantly, do you know the timeline of events leading up to that one soldier being burned and hung up? Probably not, since there aren’t any timestamps for it that I’ve been able to see. When I throw the first image into google translate, it turns some of the writing on the bus into “he killed” and “return blood.”
That’s obviously not a complete or accurate translation, but do you think it might be possible that that particular soldier was killed after committing some crimes of his own? Do you know when and where the violence started, and by who? I’m guessing not, because the whole event is pretty heavily censored by the chinese government. And that censorship is a large part of what makes me think that the government was in the wrong, and that “massacre” is an accurate term for the hundreds of civilians that were killed.
Even if we assume the chinese government was “fighting a war,” they’re sending armed soldiers and tanks into their own cities to fight against mostly unarmed “combatants”. One might say that the use of such overwhelming force in a fairly one-sided battle could be called a massacre.
This will probably be my last reply because this is really not an enjoyable topic of conversation and I don’t know how much more can be said.
For timeline on that picture, it’s clearly daytime so probably at least a couple hours after the events of that night. Agreed that we don’t truly know the motivations that placed him there, but I do think visibly displaying a body with possible signs of torture is in fact more gruesome than the (still gruesome) images of bodies having been placed to the side for later processing (is the best word I can come up with at the moment). Also the 50 ish bodies we see in these photos doesn’t go against china’s official estimate of 241.
About the conflict, I don’t think there was “the use of such overwhelming force”. I haven’t seen any reports claiming that tanks opened fire. There’s evidence of tanks running over things, but not people (though there are reports). The only report I’ve seen of a mounted gun being used was by protesters at soldiers. There isn’t any evidence of protesters being armed, though there are many reports that some had molotov cocktails. It’s also confirmed that there’s at least some involvement by the CIA with the help of the triads. As well as there’s the interview with one of the organizers (who chose not to be there because she didn’t wanted to risk her life) that includes, “What we actually are hoping for is bloodshed”.
All that being said doesn’t mean you have to 100% agree with china’s report, or especially with the Chinese government as they are now. If you care about the truth of what happened, look at the evidence. If you want to guard yourself against propaganda, it should be against all propaganda, not just foreign. Because that’s why the western narrative exists and why it’s so sensationalized. It’s an effort to demonize China and with it socialism as a whole. We should be talking less about China==bad and more about how poorly our own system is treating us.