You’re just salty that the Western backed color revolution failed in China. You would have loved to cheer the West on in sucking the country dry the same that it did with Russia after they fell for the Western lies.
Then how come discussion of Tienanman Square is discouraged, if not banned, instead of being widely extolled as successful defiance of the West? Clearly, unless Xi is actually a US plant, the government does not want discussion of it.
Because this issue is used as a battering ram to weaken the Chinese government. The West keeps talking about there being a ‘Tiananmen Massacre’ where unarmed students were killed even though behind closed doors US diplomats admit there was no bloodshed on TIananmen. It is really hard to defend yourself against those accusations which are false when the other side doesn’t need to produce any evidence whatsoever. What is provable are the deaths of the soldiers and maoists fighting in street battles outside the square but that was not a massacre and funnily enough the West also doesn’t like to talk about those deaths
Alright, I’ll contend that. Your source is thorough enough.
Personally I still see the deaths outside Beijing in the streets to be incredibly problematic and fairly emblematic of the anti free speech/protest position by the government – but I recognize a lot of the specific rhetoric with Tienanman is about killing unarmed students. I see why this is an important distinction, it was just never a real distinction in my mind. Thank you for the clarity.
Then how come discussion of Tienanman Square is discouraged, if not banned, instead of being widely extolled as successful defiance of the West? Clearly, unless Xi is actually a US plant, the government does not want discussion of it.
Because this issue is used as a battering ram to weaken the Chinese government. The West keeps talking about there being a ‘Tiananmen Massacre’ where unarmed students were killed even though behind closed doors US diplomats admit there was no bloodshed on TIananmen. It is really hard to defend yourself against those accusations which are false when the other side doesn’t need to produce any evidence whatsoever. What is provable are the deaths of the soldiers and maoists fighting in street battles outside the square but that was not a massacre and funnily enough the West also doesn’t like to talk about those deaths
Alright, I’ll contend that. Your source is thorough enough.
Personally I still see the deaths outside Beijing in the streets to be incredibly problematic and fairly emblematic of the anti free speech/protest position by the government – but I recognize a lot of the specific rhetoric with Tienanman is about killing unarmed students. I see why this is an important distinction, it was just never a real distinction in my mind. Thank you for the clarity.
deleted by creator