Him having killed 4 people doesnt mean he only had 4 bullets. I dont think that needs explaning :P
Its not true she had no primary sources. If you’d tried looking at the book you’d see it combines interviews of eyewitnesses with secondary sources. Eyewitnesses like a soldier who was at Tiananmen (who gives inconvenient details like protestors throwing bricks, glass bottles and injuring soldiers. And recounting how many were injured after clearing the square), general wu qinxian who refused to have his troops forcefully stop the protests, etc.
I still haven’t looked into the students during when force began to be used, will later.
Him having killed 4 people doesnt mean he only had 4 bullets. I dont think that needs explaning :P
I guess the topic Chinese people being killed is such an unserious matter to you that you think “:P” is an appropriate thing to use. Going mask off a little too early huh?
interviews of eyewitnesses with secondary sources.
Translation: “anonymous” sources that totally aren’t made up and more bullshit with no real sources. The only named source you have is some guy who was in a hospital the whole time.
No the “:P” was for how I found your conclusion to be silly. Isnt it silly you didnt consider warning shots, missed shots, people shot non-lethally, not to mention people being shot multiple times? So dont get ahead of yourself.
I dont know how to express my frustration of you just making stuff up about the source and leaving it to me to correct things. If you really want to criticize the book, takes a minute to download it and verify things.
No they arent anonymous, and those are two of many. The first person was just a random soldier-turned-artist whos name I excluded because I couldnt remember. I havent read the chapter on the general, but why assume he was interviewed on the events at Tianamen and not to have him recount events of before he was removed from his post?
Him having killed 4 people doesnt mean he only had 4 bullets. I dont think that needs explaning :P
Its not true she had no primary sources. If you’d tried looking at the book you’d see it combines interviews of eyewitnesses with secondary sources. Eyewitnesses like a soldier who was at Tiananmen (who gives inconvenient details like protestors throwing bricks, glass bottles and injuring soldiers. And recounting how many were injured after clearing the square), general wu qinxian who refused to have his troops forcefully stop the protests, etc.
I still haven’t looked into the students during when force began to be used, will later.
I guess the topic Chinese people being killed is such an unserious matter to you that you think “:P” is an appropriate thing to use. Going mask off a little too early huh?
Translation: “anonymous” sources that totally aren’t made up and more bullshit with no real sources. The only named source you have is some guy who was in a hospital the whole time.
No the “:P” was for how I found your conclusion to be silly. Isnt it silly you didnt consider warning shots, missed shots, people shot non-lethally, not to mention people being shot multiple times? So dont get ahead of yourself.
I dont know how to express my frustration of you just making stuff up about the source and leaving it to me to correct things. If you really want to criticize the book, takes a minute to download it and verify things.
No they arent anonymous, and those are two of many. The first person was just a random soldier-turned-artist whos name I excluded because I couldnt remember. I havent read the chapter on the general, but why assume he was interviewed on the events at Tianamen and not to have him recount events of before he was removed from his post?