“ First, that the moral line that separates the government of China from that of the US is a pretty thin one.”
The moral line between governments is incredibly thin. Our founders attempted, as best they could, to make that line stronger and more robust. We have been busy for 200 years tearing that line down.
Yes. I'm not big on being "proud" of one's ancestors - their accomplishments are their own. But I'd have a hard time not being proud to be related to him in some way. It's no exaggeration to say that he was one of the 20th century's biggest heroes.
I am proud of Sir John. He did an amazing job at showing just what Laissez-Faire capitalism can achieve. Brilliant, as well. I just have to remember that his accomplishments don’t somehow make me anything more than who I am on my own. The essence of Republicanism
Why differentiate between interior and exterior casualties of a regime? Madeleine Albright said, in answering a direct question on TV, that 500.000 dead iraqi children "was worth it" Iraq lost about 1 mio lives in total, all based on a lie. And that pertains just one of about 100 invasions and interventions of the US after WWII (according to a project of Brownstone university).
I objected to what happened in Waco. But I had no voice, and I was not heard. I felt the Attorney General at the time, Janet Reno, should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. Even though I recognized that the Branch Davidians were a cult.
I was equally horrified by what happened at Tiananmen.
Perhaps these particular demonstrations "don’t really seem to change anything" because they are based on old tired lies?
It sounds like you've come about half way towards abandoning your faith in the storyline where the arch perps are the world saviors, and the victims of their color revolutions (and one-child policies!) the evil-doers.
加油！ With a bit more effort you can make it all the way to the other side!
I'm familiar with the theory that it was all a hoax, and it just doesn't match up with what I saw back then. Is the "massacre" story overblown? I'm sure it is. Was the US security apparatus involved? Absolutely. But none of that means that nothing violent happened on June 4th. There was abundant visual evidence at the time - plenty of photos of injured protesters, etc., and first-hand accounts of violence. Also photos of corpses - although after watching the slick PR of more recent color revolutions, I am less trusting of those now.
If the claim is that "the violence didn't happen IN Tiananmen Square" - then OK, fine. It's a pointless distinction. From all I've seen, the military did crack down on the protesters in a violent way.
For the record, I've never had faith in any "storyline where the arch perps are the world saviors", and in fact spent a lot of time arguing with those who did believe this back then (and likely still do.)
That is indeed "the claim", as you put it. Do you really believe it's a pointless distinction that the alleged "massacre" never took place? The one which still racks up persistent references in the endless stream of articles, podcasts and videos in the West attacking China?
As to your claims of injured people, did you open up the linked dossier? Do you think Jay Mathews is lying? How about Hou Dejian? And Gregory Clark? If so, do you think they were enhancing their careers by making such statements?
In this case, our China-based team has access to first hand information from people who were actually involved at the time, but of course most people around the world don't have this luxury.
In a world of lies, at the end of the day of course each person has to decide for himself who is credible and who is not. When he lacks access to first and second hand information, even for those who don't have a preconceived opinion, this can be challenging.
To do so, we inevitably have to make an assessment about the credibility of third parties. The official narrative being pushed by the Western media cartel - the one which regularly sings the praises of color revolutions all over the world - remains "massacre". Should their track record lead us to trust them? Or not? That's the question.
"Do you really believe it's a pointless distinction that the alleged "massacre" never took place?"
That's not what I said. I said that the precise location of the "massacre" (or "assault") is a pointless distinction. If protesters were assaulted just outside of Tiananmen Square, it doesn't make the Chinese govt. any less culpable than if they were assaulted within the square.
"Do you think Jay Mathews is lying? How about Hou Dejian? And Gregory Clark?"
I don't have to believe they are lying, to believe that they simply didn't see something that did happen. There were also firsthand accounts at the time saying that there was a violent crackdown. As you say, it becomes a question of who you trust more.
I am absolutely open to hearing alternate explanations for what happened. Since writing the original part of this post, in 2009, I've changed my views about the scale of the violence, and I no longer call it a "massacre" because I'm not sure that's what happened. But I do remember vividly the images of bloodied people - who looked like student protesters to me - and what looked like corpses. So I do not believe that there was no violent crackdown at all.
I had not heard the version recounted in this dossier, claiming that any violence that took place that night was a result of the labor-movement protests elsewhere in Beijing. I won't dismiss that as a possibility, although I'd have to dig into it quite a bit more before accepting it as the most probable explanation (something I'm not prepared to do at the moment.)
You keep talking about this "narrative being pushed by the Western media cartel". But I did not get my information from the Western media in 1989. I was getting my news from local Hong Kong newspapers, TV stations, and radio. I did also see Western newspapers, and heard some BBC reports, but the vast majority of my information was coming from local HK sources. Are you saying that those are part of the Western media cartel too?
You asked: "Are you saying that those are part of the Western media cartel too?"
In 1989 to a large extent most certainly. Surely that cannot be a surprise, given whom Hong Kong belonged to at the time. Today HK media seem to be fairly careful about overtly promoting talking points from the Western media, but a lot has changed in 34 years.
That such 'uprisings' demanding a change of government ultimately lead to injuries and deaths is par for the course, no? The protests and clashes which took place in Beijing almost 34 years ago were one of many which have taken place all across the world in the intervening years since then, most of which have been assigned a color or some motif by a well-paid PR agency. There have in fact been so many of these that the basic script is quite clear. This script CALLS for injuries and deaths which can be blamed on the government being targeted, sometimes even if they never actually took place!
If blame for actual injuries and deaths is to be assigned, should it not primarily fall on the people who planned and financed these 'revolutions' in the first place?
Indeed, speculation on very solid historical ground. If you are unfamiliar with this, Noam Chomsky's Media Control 1st Edition is a good place to start.
“ First, that the moral line that separates the government of China from that of the US is a pretty thin one.”
The moral line between governments is incredibly thin. Our founders attempted, as best they could, to make that line stronger and more robust. We have been busy for 200 years tearing that line down.
...and yes, you are correct.
I just have to ask... any relation?
Any relation to? Sir John? Yes, although the divergence is 150 years ago
Yes. I'm not big on being "proud" of one's ancestors - their accomplishments are their own. But I'd have a hard time not being proud to be related to him in some way. It's no exaggeration to say that he was one of the 20th century's biggest heroes.
I am proud of Sir John. He did an amazing job at showing just what Laissez-Faire capitalism can achieve. Brilliant, as well. I just have to remember that his accomplishments don’t somehow make me anything more than who I am on my own. The essence of Republicanism
Why differentiate between interior and exterior casualties of a regime? Madeleine Albright said, in answering a direct question on TV, that 500.000 dead iraqi children "was worth it" Iraq lost about 1 mio lives in total, all based on a lie. And that pertains just one of about 100 invasions and interventions of the US after WWII (according to a project of Brownstone university).
Indeed.
I have to apologize regarding the project about invasions I mentioned as my memory failed me.
This is what I meant https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/
Oh! This is a fantastic resource! I mean... horrifying. But so important. I'm so glad they've done this. Thank you!
thx posted Notes, Gab, Facebook
Thank you!
I objected to what happened in Waco. But I had no voice, and I was not heard. I felt the Attorney General at the time, Janet Reno, should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. Even though I recognized that the Branch Davidians were a cult.
I was equally horrified by what happened at Tiananmen.
Blue pill: Keep living your deluded life.
Red pill: Same, but complain about it.
Perhaps these particular demonstrations "don’t really seem to change anything" because they are based on old tired lies?
It sounds like you've come about half way towards abandoning your faith in the storyline where the arch perps are the world saviors, and the victims of their color revolutions (and one-child policies!) the evil-doers.
加油！ With a bit more effort you can make it all the way to the other side!
Here's one article which might help: https://canadianpatriot.org/2021/08/20/the-comprehensive-tiananmen-square-massacre-hoax-dossier
I'm familiar with the theory that it was all a hoax, and it just doesn't match up with what I saw back then. Is the "massacre" story overblown? I'm sure it is. Was the US security apparatus involved? Absolutely. But none of that means that nothing violent happened on June 4th. There was abundant visual evidence at the time - plenty of photos of injured protesters, etc., and first-hand accounts of violence. Also photos of corpses - although after watching the slick PR of more recent color revolutions, I am less trusting of those now.
If the claim is that "the violence didn't happen IN Tiananmen Square" - then OK, fine. It's a pointless distinction. From all I've seen, the military did crack down on the protesters in a violent way.
For the record, I've never had faith in any "storyline where the arch perps are the world saviors", and in fact spent a lot of time arguing with those who did believe this back then (and likely still do.)
That is indeed "the claim", as you put it. Do you really believe it's a pointless distinction that the alleged "massacre" never took place? The one which still racks up persistent references in the endless stream of articles, podcasts and videos in the West attacking China?
As to your claims of injured people, did you open up the linked dossier? Do you think Jay Mathews is lying? How about Hou Dejian? And Gregory Clark? If so, do you think they were enhancing their careers by making such statements?
In this case, our China-based team has access to first hand information from people who were actually involved at the time, but of course most people around the world don't have this luxury.
In a world of lies, at the end of the day of course each person has to decide for himself who is credible and who is not. When he lacks access to first and second hand information, even for those who don't have a preconceived opinion, this can be challenging.
To do so, we inevitably have to make an assessment about the credibility of third parties. The official narrative being pushed by the Western media cartel - the one which regularly sings the praises of color revolutions all over the world - remains "massacre". Should their track record lead us to trust them? Or not? That's the question.
"Do you really believe it's a pointless distinction that the alleged "massacre" never took place?"
That's not what I said. I said that the precise location of the "massacre" (or "assault") is a pointless distinction. If protesters were assaulted just outside of Tiananmen Square, it doesn't make the Chinese govt. any less culpable than if they were assaulted within the square.
"Do you think Jay Mathews is lying? How about Hou Dejian? And Gregory Clark?"
I don't have to believe they are lying, to believe that they simply didn't see something that did happen. There were also firsthand accounts at the time saying that there was a violent crackdown. As you say, it becomes a question of who you trust more.
I am absolutely open to hearing alternate explanations for what happened. Since writing the original part of this post, in 2009, I've changed my views about the scale of the violence, and I no longer call it a "massacre" because I'm not sure that's what happened. But I do remember vividly the images of bloodied people - who looked like student protesters to me - and what looked like corpses. So I do not believe that there was no violent crackdown at all.
I had not heard the version recounted in this dossier, claiming that any violence that took place that night was a result of the labor-movement protests elsewhere in Beijing. I won't dismiss that as a possibility, although I'd have to dig into it quite a bit more before accepting it as the most probable explanation (something I'm not prepared to do at the moment.)
You keep talking about this "narrative being pushed by the Western media cartel". But I did not get my information from the Western media in 1989. I was getting my news from local Hong Kong newspapers, TV stations, and radio. I did also see Western newspapers, and heard some BBC reports, but the vast majority of my information was coming from local HK sources. Are you saying that those are part of the Western media cartel too?
You asked: "Are you saying that those are part of the Western media cartel too?"
In 1989 to a large extent most certainly. Surely that cannot be a surprise, given whom Hong Kong belonged to at the time. Today HK media seem to be fairly careful about overtly promoting talking points from the Western media, but a lot has changed in 34 years.
That such 'uprisings' demanding a change of government ultimately lead to injuries and deaths is par for the course, no? The protests and clashes which took place in Beijing almost 34 years ago were one of many which have taken place all across the world in the intervening years since then, most of which have been assigned a color or some motif by a well-paid PR agency. There have in fact been so many of these that the basic script is quite clear. This script CALLS for injuries and deaths which can be blamed on the government being targeted, sometimes even if they never actually took place!
If blame for actual injuries and deaths is to be assigned, should it not primarily fall on the people who planned and financed these 'revolutions' in the first place?
"In 1989 to a large extent most certainly. Surely that cannot be a surprise, given whom Hong Kong belonged to at the time."
If you have evidence of this, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, this is just speculation.
Indeed, speculation on very solid historical ground. If you are unfamiliar with this, Noam Chomsky's Media Control 1st Edition is a good place to start.