NationStates Jolt Archive

The Pro-Democracy Students? That's a laugh. Those students were also protesting for MORE socialism. They were a huge threat. On a smaller note, they were also protesting against letting blacks in Shanghai Colleges, but that's not as important as the fact that they were SOCIALISTS.

Though there would have been a better way to deal with Tiananmen Square, I cannot condemn China for chasing away the Socialists. If they got too big, it would have threatened the westerinzation of China, and how it has made the journey to turn into a Capitalist Society.

Though there could be more peaceful ways to do this, I will not condem the PRC'S action.

*opens mouth but stops,shakes head and walks away*

"Chasing away"? Sorry, I read that as "slaughtering with AK47s". Tell me at what point I'm being inaccurate.

Moreover, if you think China resembles a Western capitalist state in any way other than that Western brands have been allowed to move in there, I recommend you actually, y'know, do some research into China.

Yeah.... Socialism is obviously evil.

*shakes head and wanders on to avoid flaming*

China isn't really what I would call a Capitalistic Paradise.

Yeah.... Socialism is obviously evil.

*shakes head and wanders on to avoid flaming*


Socialism isn't a good thing....but thats another debate.....

Socialism is bad. Authoritarian violence is bad.

Redundant point.

Socialism isn't a good thing....but thats another debate.....

Neither is capitalism...

*gets some beer and a comfy chair to enjoy the show*

Socialism isn't a good thing....but thats another debate.....

Socialism has its place. People who claim China isn't socialist point to the facts that you have to pay for healthcare, education, that social welfare and housing aren't great and so on. The Chinese government points out that unlike 60 years ago it has healthcare, education and social welfare systems. One step at a time.

Ironically, this could not have been achieved without its authoritarian government. Whether you choose to regard its skipping about 150 years of history into total modernity as worth the price of authoritarian governance in that time is the genuine issue.

Well, China obviously isn't totally westernized, but it's started. Tianamen Square was a start.

Serapindal, you are justyfing your beliefs with the ultimate paradox. Frankly, you're not making sense.

Authoritarian violence is bad.

Redundant point.
There, we can agree on something.

I mean, the only difference between us is the part after the "anarcho-", right? ;)

Well, China obviously isn't totally westernized, but it's started. Tianamen Square was a start.

...wait, when was the last time a Western government slaughtered some of its citizens who were carrying out an annoying but (relatively) peaceful protest?

Well, China obviously isn't totally westernized, but it's started. Tianamen Square was a start.

I'd like to know the last time authoritarian violence was used by a Western nation to supress a protest.

...wait, when was the last time a Western government slaughtered some of its citizens who were carrying out an annoying but (relatively) peaceful protest?
1793, in France?

1793, in France?

So, about 212 years ago. I guess we've come a long way since then.

...wait, when was the last time a Western government slaughtered some of its citizens who were carrying out an annoying but (relatively) peaceful protest?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

Now, it WAS on a smaller scale...but meh. Every government has it's ups and downs.

*opens mouth but stops,shakes head and walks away*

That's about all you can do when confronted with total ignorance.

There, we can agree on something.

I mean, the only difference between us is the part after the "anarcho-", right? ;)
Well, I'm not an anarcho-anything. I'm a neolibertarian. But as a minarchist, when it comes to government, I believe less is always more. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
Now, it WAS on a smaller scale...but meh. Every government has it's ups and downs.

There's a big difference, though. Those shootings were neither condoned by the government nor were they ordered by the government to open fire. We investigated it afterwards.

The Tianamen Square massacre was directly condoned and ordered by the Chinese government, and they planned to crush the protest through violence.

...wait, when was the last time a Western government slaughtered some of its citizens who were carrying out an annoying but (relatively) peaceful protest?



Hmmm i seem to remember a certain video about a reporter in the all so great america(emphasis on lack of capital A)... who got shot in the head while filming the oncoming police at a PEACEFUL protest.... i also seem to remember quite a few other such incidents where people got shot and killed "by mistake"(yeah...sure...the gun got up and shot the person...riiight) in yur oh so wonderful western government...

It's not really the shooting the people part, it's mostly stopping the spread of Socialism. Whether it's done through shooting people or not. (I'd prefer NOT to shoot people...), it's still supressing Socialism, and Socialism is a tenet baring westernization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

Now, it WAS on a smaller scale...but meh. Every government has it's ups and downs.

Okay, Czardas, yes, you're right. However, I think you've illustrated my point; after all, that was quite a while ago.

Serandipal, you can't quote one atrocity to try to justify another. Morality does not work on the basis of "They're worse than us, so we must be good." Or don't you condemn the Nixon Administration for that event?

Hmmm i seem to remember a certain video about a reporter in the all so great america(emphasis on lack of capital A)... who got shot in the head while filming the oncoming police at a PEACEFUL protest.... i also seem to remember quite a few other such incidents where people got shot and killed "by mistake"(yeah...sure...the gun got up and shot the person...riiight) in yur oh so wonderful western government...

Those actions were performed by individuals, not at the order of the government (unlike Tianament Square, where the government outright condoned that atrocity). The government actually ordered them to crush that protest by violent means, and what you are saying the individual US police officers did is nowhere near comparable to the murder of the protestors by the Chinese government. The difference is that the US government neither condoned nor ordered them to do that.

Oh, and Russia in 1905... or does that not count as Western?

Hmm... America in 1832, 1858, and 1942 (?), and I think that's about it.

It's not really the shooting the people part, it's mostly stopping the spread of Socialism. Whether it's done through shooting people or not. (I'd prefer NOT to shoot people...), it's still supressing Socialism, and Socialism is a tenet baring westernization.
And if Socialist policies are the result of people's sovereignty?

It's not really the shooting the people part, it's mostly stopping the spread of Socialism. Whether it's done through shooting people or not. (I'd prefer NOT to shoot people...), it's still supressing Socialism, and Socialism is a tenet baring westernization.

Ironically enough, socialism is a Western idea. Of course, I'm far from a supporter of it, but that is the truth.

Hmmm i seem to remember a certain video about a reporter in the all so great america(emphasis on lack of capital A)... who got shot in the head while filming the oncoming police at a PEACEFUL protest.... i also seem to remember quite a few other such incidents where people got shot and killed "by mistake"(yeah...sure...the gun got up and shot the person...riiight) in yur oh so wonderful western government...

What?

Yes, we get that you don't respect Western governments, and you seem to be implying public assassination of journalists, amongst others, is common here and in other Western nations, but please tell me so I can believe your story, what television network on Earth would broadcast someone being shot in the head live? They don't do that. They cut that shit out before it hits the air, via a time-delay. So give me a documented example - not footage, please, I've just had me dinner - and back that up.

Ironically enough, socialism is a Western idea. Of course, I'm far from a supporter of it, but that is the truth.
You beat me to that one this time, Vetalia... but I'll be lurrrking...
:D

What?

Yes, we get that you don't respect Western governments, and you seem to be implying public assassination of journalists, amongst others, is common here and in other Western nations, but please tell me so I can believe your story, what television network on Earth would broadcast someone being shot in the head live? They don't do that. They cut that shit out before it hits the air, via a time-delay. So give me a documented example - not footage, please, I've just had me dinner - and back that up.
All these people demanding proof! Impossible!


Oh, and I just remembered that the most recent American government-ordered massacres occurred in 1923 and again in 1942.

Ladies and Gentlemen, these are the kind of people we need to guard ourselves against. Socialists, capitalists, it doesn't matter, we all hold in common a need to oppose people like Serapindal.

This is an individual so warped that they place the furthering of their ideology(in his case, Capitalism) above human lives. In all ideologies there must be a line, and that line is at killing innocent people in the name of ideology. I am a socialist, but never in my life would I say that killing a crowd of capitalist protestors is an acceptable act. I seriously doubt any reasonable person could argue that killing people with whom you disagree is a legitimate practice, and we all have common cause in opposing those crackpots that *would* argue the legitimacy of such an act.

It is people like Serapindal whom we must all be afraid of, and whom must be kept from power or influence at all costs. No good comes from his line of thinking.

Ironically enough, socialism is a Western idea. Of course, I'm far from a supporter of it, but that is the truth.
Yes, socialism is a Western idea - yet stereotypically* I see Asian culture as more of the 'all for one, one for all' attitude that often accompanies socialism.

*Asians and PC freaks who disagree with me: don't assault me for stereotyping

I will not condem the PRC'S action.
So let me see if I have this straight: you won't condem China for killing unarmed civilians in cold blood, but you'll condemn the US for everything from Iraq to a slow response to the Katrina disaster. Hmm. What's wrong with this picture. :confused:

I love the way everyone of these threads devolves into anti-American people trying to lay the blame on the USA or bring the US down a peg.

Come on people! The USA isn't perfect. We all know that. But China is a completely different story. Its a cultural thing. In most(not all) asian cultures, violence and the like is not considered a bad way to settle problems.
In western culture, if the Govt has troops start shooting up our own cities, people get upset and do something about it.

Yes, I know, someone will pick apart my post and try to poin out instances were western nations have done horrible things. Well, if you know your history, good job. But I think the majority of us can understand that(while imperfect) the west has done more to extend the rights of all people, and to bring about a better world.

And this includes the French. :D

I wouldn't exactly call china westernized considering they kill about 10,000 odd political opponents and journalists per year

:rolleyes:

They were a huge threat

Justify and explain. We arnt going to take your word for it


they were SOCIALISTS.


There is an important diffrence between Communisim and Socialisim that most Americans do not understand. This diffrence is made clear by the fact that Stalin had the NKVD going round hunting the socialists in Russia.

'back then i did though,
before politics and/or $ gain allowed me to ice my conscience'



democracy is in the streets.

rulers seek to consolidate rule by keeping it in an 'inner chamber',
congressional floor, or whatever.

authoritarianism sucks anywhere, anytime,
except for literally keeping your kids from running into a busy street.



it seems,
rulers of all countries are trying to get on the same page
so they can control the vast majority of the earth's resources
and rule without guards by repeating the mantra 'it is natural,
it is natural (for less than 1% of the population to control 95% of
the earth's resources) not. haha. never was natural, never will be.

looks like most of us disagree with the original post's idea.

p.s.
it could be argued that the minimum wage is 'socialist' or 'communistic',
but it's just a good idea. gov't owning all land is a bad idea.

All these people demanding proof! Impossible!

Oh, and I just remembered that the most recent American government-ordered massacres occurred in 1923 and again in 1942.

*nod* Thank you for that, and okay, I understand I may have poorly phrased that point. But the major issue is the condemnation of a government-ordered massacre, which I think it is immoral to withhold (unless, y'know, you're in that state and likely to be punished for it), but which Serendipal blindly believes is a necessary step towards what he sees as a better society.

*nod* Thank you for that, and okay, I understand I may have poorly phrased that point. But the major issue is the condemnation of a government-ordered massacre, which I think it is immoral to withhold (unless, y'know, you're in that state and likely to be punished for it), but which Serendipal blindly believes is a necessary step towards what he sees as a better society.
I don't see how the murders of hundreds of suspected Communist sympathizers, or the Bonus Army Massacre, have possibly helped America along. If someone can explain it to me, I'd be eternally grateful.

I don't see how the murders of hundreds of suspected Communist sympathizers, or the Bonus Army Massacre, have possibly helped America along. If someone can explain it to me, I'd be eternally grateful.

They were socialists, which automatically makes them more dangerous than the KKK or the American Nazi Party (1920's and 1940's respectively). :rolleyes:

So let me see if I have this straight: you won't condem China for killing unarmed civilians in cold blood, but you'll condemn the US for everything from Iraq to a slow response to the Katrina disaster. Hmm. What's wrong with this picture. :confused:

Actually, I support the War in Iraq, and I am slightly supportive of Bush's actions in Katrina (more so than not).

I don't see how the murders of hundreds of suspected Communist sympathizers, or the Bonus Army Massacre, have possibly helped America along. If someone can explain it to me, I'd be eternally grateful.
If by America, you mean capitalism... It hasn't. Using authoritarian means to absolve a nation of undesirable political groups cheapens the ideals we citizens hold close to heart.
In a free country, you should be able to believe in whatever political system you choose to. It's painful to have to state something so obvious because there's a few morons around that don't get it. :rolleyes:

They were socialists, which automatically makes them more dangerous than the KKK or the American Nazi Party (1920's and 1940's respectively). :rolleyes:

Exactly.

And Nazis are also called National Socialists, so I'd supose they'd fit into the catagory...

but still, there are more socialists then KKK members or anything, so I have to say, by numbers, they're a bigger threat.

They were socialists, which automatically makes them more dangerous than the KKK or the American Nazi Party (1920's and 1940's respectively). :rolleyes:
Great logic. A state will solidify its image as a democracy by killing the innocent.
Americana.

Exactly.

And Nazis are also called National Socialists, so I'd supose they'd fit into the catagory...

but still, there are more socialists then KKK members or anything, so I have to say, by numbers, they're a bigger threat.
I hope you realized the other poster was sarcastic. :rolleyes:

And all socialists are violent, extreme, and pro-authoritarian, right?

Great logic. A state will solidify its image as a democracy by killing the innocent.
Americana.

Yes, that could only turn out well!

If by America, you mean capitalism... It hasn't. Using authoritarian means to absolve a nation of undesirable political groups cheapens the ideals we citizens hold close to heart.
In a free country, you should be able to believe in whatever political system you choose to. It's painful to have to state something so obvious because there's a few morons around that don't get it. :rolleyes:

It is a painful irony that democracy allows its own detractors, indeed, may be and on occasions has been the tool in bringing about its own downfall. And that's exactly it: you've got to condemn these things. I notice Serendipal has stopped trying to answer people on his original issue, because I think s/he's noticed it's a fairly untenable claim: "If a government has an annoying peaceful protest in a major public place it should be allowed to disperse it with bullets."

now there's a term i will never understand.

on one level it sounds almost racist.
it definately sounds supremacist on some level.



'east - west'

at one time it was captialism vs communism.
forgetting that both communism & capitalism are both 'western' philosophies
or economic systems.

Russia too, is a 'western' country.

today the term 'the west' is used by pundits in 'west vs Islam' racist terms.

back to Russia,
since Russia is a western country,
would the 'west-east' have as part of its roots
the western church vs eastern orthodox church divide?
thus making the pundits use of the term 'the west'
even less credible, since we don't play the race card and
divide the world into my religion good, yours bad.
well, non-assholes don't.
Prez McKinnley prayed to god and said it was his duty to "christianize"
already Catholic Phillipinos back in the day.

plus the writers of the declaration of independence were so racist
they wrote into that document that Native Americans were "savages".
obviously unchurched, and they didn't use the 'private property' way to
divide the land. obviously not "westernized" and obviously "uncivilized" "savages".
people that hold their land collectively are inferior. therefore we
must genocide on them. let's be nazis folks, let's genocide them.
(not to say the SU & Chinese gov'ts aren't authoritarian/bad, cause they
are)

Yep, those who believe in socialism deserve to die.

And Nazis are also called National Socialists, so I'd supose they'd fit into the catagory...
Calling themselves Socialists. I see. Did you even bother to see what the reasons for that were? Are you versed in 3rd Reich economics?
That makes them the same as the murderous socialist government in today's Europe. Please, help us, America! Remove the evil of state socialism by purging our populations!

Yep, those who believe in socialism deserve to die.

Whoa, I think that's going waaaa too far, because you're sorta sounding like Stalin except your killing off another group.

I love the way everyone of these threads devolves into anti-American people trying to lay the blame on the USA or bring the US down a peg.

Come on people! The USA isn't perfect. We all know that. But China is a completely different story. Its a cultural thing. In most(not all) asian cultures, violence and the like is not considered a bad way to settle problems.
In western culture, if the Govt has troops start shooting up our own cities, people get upset and do something about it.

Yes, I know, someone will pick apart my post and try to poin out instances were western nations have done horrible things. Well, if you know your history, good job. But I think the majority of us can understand that(while imperfect) the west has done more to extend the rights of all people, and to bring about a better world.

And this includes the French. :D


You might not realize it, but you posted an extremely racist statement above.

There's no such things as domestic violence in the US. no.
bar fights? drive bys? The US is one of the most violent societies on the planet. And that doesn't even include our foreign policy.
Custer had it coming.

You might not realize it, but you posted an extremely racist statement above.

There's no such things as domestic violence in the US. no.
bar fights? drive bys? The US is one of the most violent societies on the planet. And that doesn't even include our foreign policy.
Custer had it coming.

Actually, the country with the most violent crimes is the UK.

SERAPINDAL! I realise I've been spelling your name wrong until now but that's no reason to ignore me or anyone else here who would like to know if you believe a government has a right to kill its own citizens for being in a public place protesting against it!

Shingogogol, the words "West", "Westernisation" and such here are used in a context alien from their geographical meanings. Your disconnected ramblings about racism are irrelevant.

And after a claim like that about there being more violent crime in the UK than in the USA, Serapindal, give me figures. NOW. Because your DRIVE-BY NONSENSE is not holding here. YOU started this thread; now you don't want anything to do with the topic, but you're happy to spout weird falsities?! What is this? Stats, please.

Edit 2: YES! I'M QUITE DEADLY NOW!

SERAPINDAL! I realise I've been spelling your name wrong until now but that's no reason to ignore me or anyone else here who would like to know if you believe a government has a right to kill its own citizens for being in a public place protesting against it!

Shingogogol, the words "West", "Westernisation" and such here are used in a context alien from their geographical meanings. Your disconnected ramblings about racism are irrelevant.
Well put.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

Now, it WAS on a smaller scale...but meh. Every government has it's ups and downs.



I was about to post this.
I always refer to Kent State as our Tianamen.
Remember the Boston Massacre (back in US colonial period)
was only 4 people killed. But disgusting non-the-less.

AND
On May 14 of the same year, two students at the historically black Jackson State University were shot to death and several others wounded, under more questionable circumstances
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_State_killings


It might also be added to gov't on its citizens deaths that of Waco, TX.
Ward Churchill in the updated copy of his book "The COINTELPRO Papers"
goes into mega-detail, heavily footnoted on this topic.

There's also the city of Philadelphia dropping a fire bomb on
the MOVE complex, killing women and children and charging collective guilt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#Confrontation_Leads_Police_to_Bomb_MOVE_House

gov't is gov't, local or federal.

any government can be dangerous if it places the few rich and powerful men leading the nations desires above the needs of their citizens. People have different views on how life and government should function, if socialists live in socialist governments and capitalists live in capitalistic governments, then great, too each their own. The problem is when the government refuses to listen to change from its citizens and reacts violently (ALL GOVERNMENTS DO REACT VIOLENTLY SOMETIMES).

I am an American and I believe in capitilism, though the current state of America saddens me, we are in a period of violence and fear, one I hope we pass through quickly. But in our defense we have systems in place to help citizens speak their minds (Bill of Rights) While the American government has massacred people in the past, it has also protected the rights of people most don't like, such as the National Socialists when they held a pro-Nazi rally in a Jewish town in Illinois (mid 70s).

My point is all nations of any economic or government structure screw it up sometimes, and although America is just as screwed up as anywhere else, all nations, us included, have the potential to move towards a better society.

P.S. Im not sure the Westernization of Asian culture is such a good idea. Be proud of who you are ASIA!!! You invented tai chi and fireworks and all kinds of cool shit. Our best invention is the slinkie!

They were socialists, which automatically makes them more dangerous than the KKK or the American Nazi Party (1920's and 1940's respectively). :rolleyes:

Socialsim is not dangerous. It is practised in Europe to this very day with complete resonoablenes. Americans do not understand it, thats all

Yep, those who believe in socialism deserve to die.

Yes, becuase you actually understand what socialism is :rolleyes:

Ladies and Gentlemen, these are the kind of people we need to guard ourselves against. Socialists, capitalists, it doesn't matter, we all hold in common a need to oppose people like Serapindal.

This is an individual so warped that they place the furthering of their ideology(in his case, Capitalism) above human lives. In all ideologies there must be a line, and that line is at killing innocent people in the name of ideology. I am a socialist, but never in my life would I say that killing a crowd of capitalist protestors is an acceptable act. I seriously doubt any reasonable person could argue that killing people with whom you disagree is a legitimate practice, and we all have common cause in opposing those crackpots that *would* argue the legitimacy of such an act.

It is people like Serapindal whom we must all be afraid of, and whom must be kept from power or influence at all costs. No good comes from his line of thinking.



Hear hear.

SERAPINDAL! I realise I've been spelling your name wrong until now but that's no reason to ignore me or anyone else here who would like to know if you believe a government has a right to kill its own citizens for being in a public place protesting against it!

Shingogogol, the words "West", "Westernisation" and such here are used in a context alien from their geographical meanings. Your disconnected ramblings about racism are irrelevant.

And after a claim like that about there being more violent crime in the UK than in the USA, Serapindal, give me figures. NOW. Because your DRIVE-BY NONSENSE is not holding here. YOU started this thread; now you don't want anything to do with the topic, but you're happy to spout weird falsities?! What is this? Stats, please.

Edit 2: YES! I'M QUITE DEADLY NOW!


I actually quite reject the term "the west".
I don't know what it means.
It seems it is used by political pundits (regardless of mainstream political party) in favor
of US global policial, economic, and military domination,
to further such.
Maybe it just means Washington & London?
It certainly doesn't mean the rest of the United States.
That's what I think about when I hear that word.
Other than that, maybe I'm just ignorant of the meaning?
If dehumanizing others by simply calling them "terrorist" is a
'defense' of the west, then yes, it is racist. As very much as calling
the people of America's First Nations savages.



(Sorry IF you get your world view from television.)

I actually quite reject the term "the west".
I don't know what it means.
It seems it is used by political pundits (regardless of mainstream political party) in favor
of US global policial, economic, and military domination,
to further such.
Maybe it just means Washington & London?
It certainly doesn't mean the rest of the United States.
That's what I think about when I hear that word.
Other than that, maybe I'm just ignorant of the meaning?
If dehumanizing others by simply calling them "terrorist" is a
'defense' of the west, then yes, it is racist. As very much as calling
the people of America's First Nations savages.



(Sorry IF you get your world view from television.)

No, the term "The West" is used to describe a set of geopolitical entities with roughly similar governments - multi-party democracies - as well as a few other characteristics, such as economic similarities. The US, Canada and most of Europe falls into this category.

"Defence of the West" is a phrase I've not heard since the wall came down. If you choose to oppose foolish right-wing pundits who wish to wage war on Islam, fine, but don't lump the entire political communities of the aforementioned nations in with them, okay? In case you hadn't noticed, there are plenty who don't see the current world situation as "Us and Them".

I don't condemn what happened at Tianamen square either. Its not a nice thing to think about, but sometimes, strong governments need to take strong actions. Lets put it this way(though only one of the ways possible):

The US invades Iraq, the main reason is to defend itself(WMD).
Nearly 2,000 americans dead, 400 other allies dead, 20k americans wounded, 26k iraqi's dead, and 46k iraqi's wounded or so.
Result: People still dying, WMD didn't even turn out to be true, billions of dollars wasted a month there.

China disperses protesters at Tianamen Square with force, to defend itself(Strong government, can't just let people protest)
Variable, 500 to 3000 chinese dead in this "massacre".
Result: China still maintains a strong grip on the populace.

Nobody was massacred at Tianamen square. For starters, the students(who had been at the square for about 6 weeks, and using hunger strikes and mass sit-in's to provoke media attention). On the night of June 3rd, the chinese government declared martial law, and sent troops in to disperse the protesters at the square. However, on their way to the square, many people blocked off the troops into the square. This is where the deaths occured, when chinese soldiers shot those who blocked them off(or shouted at them).

Nobody was massacred. The people who died could have gone home, they could have not "fought the establishment". Instead, they faced a brutal army, and were brutally killed. Unless you are willing to fight to the death, don't fight.

At the actual square, the protesters were made leave at gunpoint, not executed en masse, as people make it sound. If the chinese wanted to massacre them, there are much quieter ways, etc. The army had orders to disperse the protesters at all costs. Those who died gambled, and lost.

Chellis wins the topic.

As horrific as the massacre was, I have to disagree with the "brutal army" label, especially considering that the PLA was just following their orders that was handed down from the political apparatus of the Chinese government. Incidentally there were initially support for the movement from some military commanders, and incidentally there were a lot of military commanders court-martialed for refusing to obey the orders to go into Beijing, but orders were still orders. I am not glorifying the order itself, but it wasn't as if the PLA itself really wanted to go ahead with the massacre with so much optimism.

...wait, when was the last time a Western government slaughtered some of its citizens who were carrying out an annoying but (relatively) peaceful protest?

Try asking the folks at Kent State this question.

Try asking the folks at Kent State this question.

Indeed, and it is comparable to an extent, and yet in some aspects more deplorable,than Tianamen is.

We should learn some stuff from the PRC...

*cough* Cindy Sheehan *cough*

Nobody was massacred at Tianamen square. For starters, the students(who had been at the square for about 6 weeks, and using hunger strikes and mass sit-in's to provoke media attention). On the night of June 3rd, the chinese government declared martial law, and sent troops in to disperse the protesters at the square. However, on their way to the square, many people blocked off the troops into the square. This is where the deaths occured, when chinese soldiers shot those who blocked them off(or shouted at them).



It was the students fault?
Defense of the state because the law said what they were doing was illegal?
Helping free slaves in the US was once illegal too.
Perhaps you're in the business of deifying the state, i.e. coming to the defense of totalitarian societies.

Martial law is a technique of totalitarian societies.


____
On "the west".
Many different definitions.
And not all 'good'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world

Those right wingers you (New Watenho) refer to are just
using the conflict to not only defend their economic position, but
to continue its expansion that has been going on for some 500+ years.
No different from the more subtle policies of a Kerry, Clinton, or Carter.

I guess it depends on ones usage of the word.
I wouldn't use it.
Too much racist overtone.

The Pro-Democracy Students? That's a laugh. Those students were also protesting for MORE socialism. They were a huge threat. On a smaller note, they were also protesting against letting blacks in Shanghai Colleges, but that's not as important as the fact that they were SOCIALISTS.
Damn right they were protesting for more socialism. More socialism, more freedom and more democracy (yes, they go together). They were protesting against affirmative action programmes for minorities in China.

Even if you disagree with concepts like socialism and democracy, you should give a good reason for why they deserved to be mowed down by gunfire for these beliefs.

Yep, those who believe in socialism deserve to die.
I'm sure someone has archived this post, with the intention of putting this boy up against the wall in the first hour of the revolution. ;)

Whoa, I think that's going waaaa too far, because you're sorta sounding like Stalin except your killing off another group.
It's pretty much what you said. The only defense you gave of the PRC's actions, were that the protestors were socialist.

what television network on Earth would broadcast someone being shot in the head live?
WXLT-TV (http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Chris_Chubbuck)

I'm sure someone has archived this post, with the intention of putting this boy up against the wall in the first hour of the revolution. ;)


Sarcasm dear :)

WXLT-TV (http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Chris_Chubbuck)

That's disturbing.

It's pretty much what you said. The only defense you gave of the PRC's actions, were that the protestors were socialist.
Please, let's put things in perspective:
- "socialists" (some were, some were not) in the square were protesting the policies a Marxist (reformist, but not capitalist) gov't. I believe in democratic socialism, and I shun the Chinese gov't: capitalist or socialist, it is not democratic (as if I need to stress it).
- socialism being the policy of choice with the protestors is not a thing to be affirmed without looking into the causes of it. I mean, even a pro-capitalist group would promote gradualism when confronted with the Chinese military machine. Also, those who were socialist understood were aiming for Glasnost (I'm willing to bet the name is forgotten in America; am I right, Serapindal? - they're ALL commies out there, right?), as a preserving of the statu-quo. No one, on either side, wanted a return to Maoism.
- the process resembles the one taking place in Eastern Europe - if you want to challenge me on that, make sure you know that I was born, and live, in this particular region; I would consider a lecture on it from a conservative American as in bad taste.

EDIT: Swimmingpool, I have yours as the original quote not because I disagree, but because you pointed to an obvious issue.

INobody was massacred at Tianamen square. For starters, the students(who had been at the square for about 6 weeks, and using hunger strikes and mass sit-in's to provoke media attention). On the night of June 3rd, the chinese government declared martial law, and sent troops in to disperse the protesters at the square. However, on their way to the square, many people blocked off the troops into the square. This is where the deaths occured, when chinese soldiers shot those who blocked them off(or shouted at them).So then, what you're saying is that it isn't acceptable to kill protestors, but that it is acceptable to kill people for obstruction of traffic?

I'd like to know the last time authoritarian violence was used by a Western nation to supress a protest.
1968 in Chicago ? or maybe May 1970 at kent State ?

1968 in Chicago ? or maybe May 1970 at kent State ?
Ooh 1968 in Chicago, I forgot that one. Kent State was sort of rebutted because the people who ordered the massacre were tried for it. But I've never heard anything about the people who ordered the violence in Chicago in 1968 being investigated and put on trial for it.

It was the students fault?
Defense of the state because the law said what they were doing was illegal?
Helping free slaves in the US was once illegal too.
Perhaps you're in the business of deifying the state, i.e. coming to the defense of totalitarian societies.

Martial law is a technique of totalitarian societies.


____
On "the west".
Many different definitions.
And not all 'good'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world

Those right wingers you (New Watenho) refer to are just
using the conflict to not only defend their economic position, but
to continue its expansion that has been going on for some 500+ years.
No different from the more subtle policies of a Kerry, Clinton, or Carter.

I guess it depends on ones usage of the word.
I wouldn't use it.
Too much racist overtone.

Right-winger? Me? Aaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaaa!

You wish to insult me? You're ignorant, spouting semi-conspiracy theories; READ what I WROTE and stop reciting the pseudo-fundamentalist "individual's" creed: "The other side is wrong... The other side is wrong..."

Yes, it does depend on one's usage of the word. I use it in the ways I DESCRIBED. The innocent ways used to lump together a group of societies because using the nine keystrokes in "the West" is easier than typing "America, Canda, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain" and so on every time. So before you try to call me a right-winger, which, I might add, is the third most hilarious thing I've ever been called, next to "racist" and "homophobe", what with my first boyfriend having been a Sufi Muslim and all, read properly and behave accordingly.

Oh, and Russia in 1905... or does that not count as Western?

Hmm... America in 1832, 1858, and 1942 (?), and I think that's about it.

Russia isn't a Western country. Never has been.

...and the rest I'd have to know exactly what the hell you're refering to. There's nothing that compares to running over people with tanks in american history.

...and the rest I'd have to know exactly what the hell you're refering to. There's nothing that compares to running over people with tanks in american history.There have been plenty of labor massacres ordered by the U.S. government, (Ludlow and Homestead are two that come to mind), though I can't think of any that correspond to the years that he mentioned. He must be talking about something else.

There have been plenty of labor massacres ordered by the U.S. government, (Ludlow and Homestead are two that come to mind), though I can't think of any that correspond to the years that he mentioned. He must be talking about something else.

waco and Ruby ridge can be considered massacres .

waco and Ruby ridge can be considered massacres .
I could see someone arguing that, yes, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that. But neither Waco nor Ruby Ridge happened in the years that Colodia mentioned.

Think about this. It is not smart to play Chicken with a tank.

So they were racist? Now that's different. Condemning them for supporting socialism and democracy is indeed stupid, at least to me, but I can totally agree with you on them being wrong for racism. On the other hand, I would hardly say merely being racist is a good enough reason to kill them.

I think the reason why the Tianiamen massacre is focused on so much by the west is because China is ruled by an "evil" communist government( of course its pretty much capitalist now)

Many people don't even know about South Korea's Gwangju massacre in 1980. Of course South Korea is a "good" capitalist country so its largely ignored.

"The death toll of the 1980 Gwangju Massacre has been subject to considerable dispute. The official investigation by the civilian government in the 1990s found that 207 civilians could be confirmed slain. [1] In addition they found 987 "Other Casualties" who suffered substantial injury. However, a BBC report indicates that these numbers may be conservative. [2] Estimates prepared by dissident groups in the period of military government and opposition parties in the late-1980s such as the Peace and Democracy Party claimed one to two thousand were dead. [3] However, detailed information about the identities of the dead has not been provided to back up these claims."

-Wikipedia

My opinion on the Tianamen Square Massacre is that the government was way to harsh on the protesters and should have made an apology like the South Korean government did. I can understand why the protests need to end, otherwise it could have resulted in widespread chaos.

Think about this. It is not smart to play Chicken with a tank.

Well somebody's got to do it. When you don't like the government, generally you do something about it. Quite honestly, you strike me as one of those people that would sit on their bum and watch people getting slaughtered rather than speak out against it.

Socialism isn't a good thing.
Socialism is bad.
Oh yes. Socialism is a terrible, dreadful thing isn't it. That's why, no doubt, you rail against nasty socialist practises like socialised military, socialised roading, socialised police force, socialised fire dept, socialised education...

I think the reason why the Tianiamen massacre is focused on so much by the west is because China is ruled by an "evil" communist government( of course its pretty much capitalist now)

Many people don't even know about South Korea's Gwangju massacre in 1980. Of course South Korea is a "good" capitalist country so its largely ignored.

"The death toll of the 1980 Gwangju Massacre has been subject to considerable dispute. The official investigation by the civilian government in the 1990s found that 207 civilians could be confirmed slain. [1] In addition they found 987 "Other Casualties" who suffered substantial injury. However, a BBC report indicates that these numbers may be conservative. [2] Estimates prepared by dissident groups in the period of military government and opposition parties in the late-1980s such as the Peace and Democracy Party claimed one to two thousand were dead. [3] However, detailed information about the identities of the dead has not been provided to back up these claims."

-Wikipedia

My opinion on the Tianamen Square Massacre is that the government was way too harsh on the protesters and should have made an apology like the South Korean government did. I can understand why the protests need to end, otherwise it could have resulted in widespread chaos.
'Way too harsh'?
Have you any idea how many were killed there? Official estimates are around a 1000, but unofficial estimates put it closer to 10 000.
Considering how much and how often the Chinese govt lies about their stats, I'm going for the higher figure.

So you refer to killing 10 000 unarmed protesters as 'too harsh' needing an 'apology' but you can understand why the govt needed to do it.

*shakes head*


FYI, these people were protesting about govt corruption. It started over the death of Hu Yaobang who once was party general secretary but was forced to resign over his clashes with Deng Xiaoping because he was much more liberal minded who wanted China to be more open and capitalist. He promoted the (terribly nasty socialist) ideas of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. On his death the official party view of Hu was pretty dreadful.
The students started protesting, wanting a much better and supportive party view of Hu but were ignored. This led to further and larger protesters which culminated in a 100 000 peaceful march through Beijing ending at Tianamen square where they requested to see and talk to the authorities. This was also refused. The students then started a hunger strike in the square demanding to be seen by the government and that the accusations made in the People's Daily editorial (that they were dissidents and terrorists) be withdrawn.
A week later the army were sent in to crush them.

And you support the Chinese govt to crush a bunch of very hungry peaceful protesters, who's main demands were for more freedom of speech and freedon of the press.

You're living in the wrong era. Build a time machine, head back 70 years and book a ticket to Germany. You'd fit in there perfectly.

'Way too harsh'?
Have you any idea how many were killed there? Official estimates are around a 1000, but unofficial estimates put it closer to 10 000.
Considering how much and how often the Chinese govt lies about their stats, I'm going for the higher figure.

So you refer to killing 10 000 unarmed protesters as 'too harsh' needing an 'apology' but you can understand why the govt needed to do it.

*shakes head*


FYI, these people were protesting about govt corruption. It started over the death of Hu Yaobang who once was party general secretary but was forced to resign over his clashes with Deng Xiaoping because he was much more liberal minded who wanted China to be more open and capitalist. He promoted the (terribly nasty socialist) ideas of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. On his death the official party view of Hu was pretty dreadful.
The students started protesting, wanting a much better and supportive party view of Hu but were ignored. This led to further and larger protesters which culminated in a 100 000 peaceful march through Beijing ending at Tianamen square where they requested to see and talk to the authorities. This was also refused. The students then started a hunger strike in the square demanding to be seen by the government and that the accusations made in the People's Daily editorial (that they were dissidents and terrorists) be withdrawn.
A week later the army were sent in to crush them.

And you support the Chinese govt to crush a bunch of very hungry peaceful protesters, who's main demands were for more freedom of speech and freedon of the press.

You're living in the wrong era. Build a time machine, head back 70 years and book a ticket to Germany. You'd fit in there perfectly.

And you're going to trust unofficial sources?

Unofficial sources also say the Holocaust never happened. Are you going to trust them?

I have briefly studied the TSM and I have never seen it described as anything but a pro-democracy movement. I have never read a commentator who suggested that the students were asking for more communism.

Now, I could be wrong, but I would at least like to look at a few sources.

And you're going to trust unofficial sources?

Unofficial sources also say the Holocaust never happened. Are you going to trust them?
And you're going to trust the Chinese govt that, for example, didn't officially admit to having any SARs cases for months in 2002 (and actively suppressed any information about it - to the point of arresting and jailing journalists who tried to report it), which helped in no end to spread the disease through-out Southern China and Hong Kong?

You going to trust a govt that has successfully demanded that Microsoft block any links and blogs that have any of the words 'Democracy', 'freedom', 'human rights', 'Taiwan independence' or 'demonstration' in them?

You going to trust a govt that recently jailed a journalist for 10 years after he had forwarded an email from the govt telling all journalists not to refer to the Tianamen Square massacre on it's 15th anniversary. Yahoo gave the Chinese govt the details btw.

Incidently, the Chinese Red Cross (who are controlled by the Chinese govt in that they only allowed in China if they agree to the party's terms) have stated at least 2500 people were killed. Which is just every so slightly above the official party figure of less than 400.
So if you have a state-controlled organisation coming out with a figure 6x higher than official figures, you're still going to trust the govt?

What innocence and trust you have. It's quite sweet really.

It was the students fault?
Defense of the state because the law said what they were doing was illegal?
Helping free slaves in the US was once illegal too.
Perhaps you're in the business of deifying the state, i.e. coming to the defense of totalitarian societies.

Martial law is a technique of totalitarian societies.

It was the students faults.

The government made it clear that they didn't accept what the protestors were doing. They took the risk of defying the totalitarian society.

Helping free slaves was once illegal, and I would fully support someone in 1845 being punished for doing so. Breaking the law isn't the correct way to try to change it.

I'm not in the buisness of anything, elsewise I would expect some paychecks from the PRC. However, I believe that Totalitarianism is a valid form of governance. Its not one I probably prefer, but still valid.

Those who died had the chance not to.

So then, what you're saying is that it isn't acceptable to kill protestors, but that it is acceptable to kill people for obstruction of traffic?

If the protestors hadn't left the square, while at gunpoint, it would have been acceptable.

There is a difference between obstruction of traffic and obstruction of military operations. If you run in front of a tank with a mission, and refuse to let it pass, you should expect to have heavy punishment, including death.

Not only did the students/etc provoke the chinese, but they were also violent. Again, anyone who didn't want to die, could have avoided it.

What everyone seems to be missing is that people probably couldn't "just leave" the square.

Think about it. thousands of people squashed up together, like being in a crowd in a football stadium. Try pushing your way through, and see how far you get. While you're being chased by tanks.

There is a difference between obstruction of traffic and obstruction of military operations. If you run in front of a tank with a mission, and refuse to let it pass, you should expect to have heavy punishment, including death.
The idea that people could or should be murdered if they interfere with military actions while protesting is absurd. The right to protest and not be murdered overrides the right of governments to conduct military operations.

If the protestors hadn't left the square, while at gunpoint, it would have been acceptable.

There is a difference between obstruction of traffic and obstruction of military operations. If you run in front of a tank with a mission, and refuse to let it pass, you should expect to have heavy punishment, including death.

Not only did the students/etc provoke the chinese, but they were also violent. Again, anyone who didn't want to die, could have avoided it.
And if that tank's mission is to kill unarmed people protesting for freedom of speech, you support the tank?
and exactly where did you hear that the students were violent? The only provoking they did was demanding more freedom.

Nobody was massacred. The people who died could have gone home, they could have not "fought the establishment". Instead, they faced a brutal army, and were brutally killed. Unless you are willing to fight to the death, don't fight. WTF!!!! So you are saying that if someone doesn't like the government, or anything for that matter, then either be prepared to die to try and change it, or shut up and go home?!?!
You don't think that people should have the right to protest the governments actions without fear of immanent death?!?

You are saying that the people who killed these protestors, or ordered them killed, were in no way responsible for their actions because the protestors were fighting the establishment. They deserved to die for not doing what they were told.

This is one of the most fucked up things that I have ever seen. Someone condoning the massacre of innocents because they were protesting the government.

China disperses protesters at Tianamen Square with force, to defend itself(Strong government, can't just let people protest) Again. WTF!?!? How were they defending themselves? By not allowing protestors? How is that a justification for mass murder?

I wouldn't exactly call china westernized considering they kill about 10,000 odd political opponents and journalists per year

:rolleyes:

The Western powers are among the greatest purveyors of political violence on earth, and have been for centuries. Now it's mostly done by proxy, to cloak it somewhat from the domestic populace, but it's still policy.

This "benevolent liberal democracy" illusion is such nonsense.

China is quickly becoming similar, but it hasn't quite yet managed to control thought and smash dissent while maintaining a seemingly liberal standpoint on civil liberties. That will complete its Westernization process.

The PRC's actions against socialist protesters was completely and utterly evil, pure and simple. The students were right then, and those who agree with them are right now: it is long past time for a democratic socialist China and a democratic socialist world.

But regardless of their ideological accuracy, peaceful protesters should not be slaughtered, period. Not if they are Stalinists, not if they are Neo-Nazis. If they are violating the law arresting them is perhaps justified, but not massacring them.

As a side point, it is amusing to note that such so-called "leftist" apologist organizations as the World Worker's Party state exactly the same thing for precisely the opposite reasons.

The mistake the Chinese protesters made was in thinking there is such a thing as " peacefull " protest in China . If they want to change things they need to follow the examples of their own history and kill a few million people who do not aggree with them . :D

...wait, when was the last time a Western government slaughtered some of its citizens who were carrying out an annoying but (relatively) peaceful protest?


LOL too much:

Kent State USA May 4, 1970

This may not apply to all, but maybe it should. It should also be taen literally. This is a quote from the declaration Of Independence:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."


It is the duty of oppressed people to assure their rights under their rulers. It is a basic human right to believe and seek the best that can be achieve for themselves and their families, and if that means overthrowing a crushing and intolerable ruling entity than that is what must be done.

Only the people of China can topple their government and they have every right to do so. China's reaction to Tianemen Square was the kneejerk reaction of a country who will one day have to deal with full blown revolt. It is inevitable and they know it, that is why the continuous statements of "Look, life is so much better now then before" come from their leaders.

The people of the former Soviet Union no longer believed the lies, and the people of China will soon do the same. The fact that they used their bodies as their ultimate sacrifice will only go to reinforce the need to topple their rulers to future protestors.

Once you see the need to educate the masses, you have to deal with their educated decisions. China will have to deal with it's population's needs eventually, either through total supression or major social change. The second being the only one it has a chance of achieving.

I think the reason why the Tianiamen massacre is focused on so much by the west is because China is ruled by an "evil" communist government( of course its pretty much capitalist now)

Many people don't even know about South Korea's Gwangju massacre in 1980. Of course South Korea is a "good" capitalist country so its largely ignored.


South Korea is one of the key players the West is using to attempt to contain China as a regional and rival hegemon. I see nothing wrong with that. Beijing attempted to influence the last presidential election but threatening to hinder trade with the Red States to attack Bush's base. This is the great geo-political game. China has its own problems and their stated goal of "peaceful social evolution" is not being accomplished by merely closing down a few internet cafes or persecuting religious minorities. I think the CCP has this idea that if it closes its eyes, it will go away. If they ignore the AIDS epidemic, it will go away, if they don't let the public know about SARS when it first appeared, it will go away. If they ignore the world's reaction to its political and religious prisoners, it will go away. But ignore all of this, they will only allow these issues to fester and grow into concerted movements. Now the Ministry of State Security may have up to 3,000 - 4,000 agents and observers in the US alone monitoring Falun Gong, Taiwanese and other activists. (http://www.4law.co.il/chen1.pdf)

Why don't they go monitor the boiling ethnic tension in the XianJiang Autonomous Region, the Uighur Muslim separatists that are going to start blowing the Central Asian pipelines because they feel left out of the prosperity? Why don't they monitor the growing tension against the corrupt Chinese business elites in Malaysia, Indonesia and the Phillipines? Why don't they monitor their fellow Communist Party member officials who have looted the national treasury for trips to Las Vegas?

One of the reasons the students got traction with the American Left is that they were socialists and even back in 1989, they saw the problems with the CCP. Whether or not I agree with the students, the PLA's response to a dissident movement was telling.

The Party has to accept that we're an open society with unlimited bandwidth and its actions are transparent. The act of slaughtering students may have scared them into shutting up for a while, they give their detractors ammunition. By persecuting Christians, the Communists bolster GW Bush's Evangelical base. If China doesn't want the world to listen to political dissidents and activists, there's a very simple solution: Don't create them in a first place by suppressing expression. If the authorities send armor and infantry to suppress a few thousand disenchanted youth, then that tells me the "authority" fears being perceived by the public as weak and feels it must overreact with show of force to remain legitimate.

The West isn't perfect, with the mention of the Kent State Massacre, but realize that we can at least read about the incident via wikipedia. Do you think Chinese internet surfers have the luxury of reading the wikipedia entry on the Tianammen Square Massacre without going through anonymizing proxy servers?

I may not agree with the students, but I feel compelled now to exercise the freedom they were denied:

The Chinese Communist Party is a PAPER DRAGON.

Just one week after Beijing announced they were blocking another set of websites, Chinese students got their hands on a new list of proxy servers. Their gatekeepers are trying to shovel the beach into the ocean. Give it up. Teenagers are going to see what they want to see and the only way to stop it is the shut down the Internet, take the Great Leap Backward. But you can't can you? Half your party members and PLA generals are heavily invested in IT industries and catering to a global market.

The Chinese Communist Party is a PAPER DRAGON.

Beijing may talk shit about Taiwan, but every time Chen Shui Ben makes a pro-independence comment, they fire a few test missiles and that's it. No blockade. No invasion. No amphibious landing. What's the matter? Worried about world opinion? Worried about a boycott of the '08 Olympics?

The Chinese Communist Party is a PAPER DRAGON.

China also seems to think they can string along North Korea and use it as a proxy to bog us down. Let's see what happens when Pyongyang tests a nuclear bomb underground and Australia, South Korea, Japan and even Taiwan builds their own nukes in response?

The Chinese Communist Party is a PAPER DRAGON.

The idea that people could or should be murdered if they interfere with military actions while protesting is absurd.

Its not murder, its killing. Get your terms right. Were any chinese soldiers tried? no.

The right to protest and not be murdered overrides the right of governments to conduct military operations.

The hell it does. You might as well defend those who shot at troops in new orleans. Or is it different when its students throwing rocks and molotovs at the chinese?

The right to protest(which I don't even know if they have in china, probably not) does not override the right of the government to conduct military operations. A protest is much less important than a military operation, especially one that is active(as opposed to a training mission, or such).

And if that tank's mission is to kill unarmed people protesting for freedom of speech, you support the tank?
and exactly where did you hear that the students were violent? The only provoking they did was demanding more freedom.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB16/documents/

"The next day’s morning intelligence summary (Document 9) reports on the first use of force on both sides--with the police firing tear gas on crowds gathered near Tiananmen and the crowds retaliating by stoning the police."

"thousands of civilians stood their ground or swarmed around military vehicles. APCs were set on fire, and demonstrators besieged troops with rocks, bottles, and Molotov cocktails."

"the destruction of a large number of military vehicles, threats to execute students, and the potential for violent resistance by students."


The Tank's mission wasn't to kill people. It was to disperse the protest by any means nessecary. If the protesters wouldn't leave, in the face of death, then they accepted death.

This wasn't in america. They don't have the same rights there. They should have known, after the government told them to leave, martial law was required, and tanks and APC's were sent in, that if they tried to stop the military, they would get shot. They chose to be shot.

WTF!!!! So you are saying that if someone doesn't like the government, or anything for that matter, then either be prepared to die to try and change it, or shut up and go home?!?!

In a totalitarian government, yes. These protesters were told by the government to leave, they didn't. If they wanted to change a totalitarian government who wouldn't allow them to protest, they had better have been ready to die for their cause.

You don't think that people should have the right to protest the governments actions without fear of immanent death?!?

Again, in a totalitarian government, no. Not when that govt. tells them to leave, then declares martial law, then sends in troops.

You are saying that the people who killed these protestors, or ordered them killed, were in no way responsible for their actions because the protestors were fighting the establishment. They deserved to die for not doing what they were told.

They were responsible, but not to be given punishment, etc. The people who died were the one's stopping the military from doing its job. Those did deserve to die.

This is one of the most fucked up things that I have ever seen. Someone condoning the massacre of innocents because they were protesting the government.

In a totalitarian system. But again, the protesters were not killed! Those who actively tried to stop the military from doing its job were. Those who attacked the vehicles with molotov cocktails, and stoned troops were. The chinese escalated their response to the protesters. They waited until they were being shot at, to leave.

Again. WTF!?!? How were they defending themselves? By not allowing protestors? How is that a justification for mass murder?

They defended their government power. This was an action to show they were the opposite, not a paper dragon. It was to show they would use force when they needed to. If they pussied out, the cause of the protesters might have grown in china.

There was no mass murder, so I won't even answer that.

In a totalitarian government, yes. These protesters were told by the government to leave, they didn't. If they wanted to change a totalitarian government who wouldn't allow them to protest, they had better have been ready to die for their cause. They were responsible, but not to be given punishment, etc. The people who died were the one's stopping the military from doing its job. Those did deserve to die. But again, the protesters were not killed! Those who actively tried to stop the military from doing its job were. Those who attacked the vehicles with molotov cocktails, and stoned troops were. The chinese escalated their response to the protesters. They waited until they were being shot at, to leave.

There was no mass murder, so I won't even answer that.

So...your message is, "If you live in a totalitarian state and believe you have a chance to change it to a better state by peaceful protest, you forefeit your right to life by doing so." Do you think any nation has the right to kill citizens for protesting?

Moreover, yes, the protests did turn violent, but you may have noticed we have riots here in various democratic Western countries occasionally, and we tend to keep them down without (somewhere between) 800 (NY Times estimate) and 2,500 (Red Cross) casualties. Rubber bullets, tear gas, riot shields and truncheons do the job fine. Submachine guns we shy away from. This is not a "cultural difference"; this is the difference between killing people and incapacitating people. And yes, I know rubber bullets kill, and someone out there will have been allergic to and have choked on tear gas, but that's a slightly different issue: when you fire AK47s, you don't mean to leave people incapacitated but alive.

And I guess with up to 2,500 casualties, it depends on your definition of "mass murder", hey?

Edit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4313282.stm

"On nearly every rooftop, including our own, we could see PSB agents with binoculars and radios trying to get control of the area. About noon, we heard the APCs start up and begin to leave the square. In order to clear Changan Avenue some of the machine-gunners opened up on the crowd, people fled again in panic."

"In order to clear Changan Avenue." I think that says enough?

"At about four or five in the morning, tank columns raced into the square smashing buses, bicycles and humans under their treads. As the sun began to rise, we could see the mass of armour in the square, escorted by thousands of PLA troops."

Will that do?

"At the top of the square just in front of the Forbidden City, an APC got separated from its column, and in its panic to get out of the crowd area, ran over several demonstrators. This, in turn, caused the crowd to grow violent."

While the demonstrator violence may be said to have started the massacre, you can bloody well see why they got angry.

So...your message is, "If you live in a totalitarian state and believe you have a chance to change it to a better state by peaceful protest, you forefeit your right to life by doing so." Do you think any nation has the right to kill citizens for protesting?

Nobody was killed for protesting. People were killed for stopping the military from doing its job.

Moreover, yes, the protests did turn violent, but you may have noticed we have riots here in various democratic Western countries occasionally, and we tend to keep them down without (somewhere between) 800 (NY Times estimate) and 2,500 (Red Cross) casualties. Rubber bullets, tear gas, riot shields and truncheons do the job fine. Submachine guns we shy away from. This is not a "cultural difference"; this is the difference between killing people and incapacitating people. And yes, I know rubber bullets kill, and someone out there will have been allergic to and have choked on tear gas, but that's a slightly different issue: when you fire AK47s, you don't mean to leave people incapacitated but alive.

The Chinese used tear gas, the protesters stoned the troops. And the protesters still wouldn't leave. They turned to stronger means afterward.

And I guess with up to 2,500 casualties, it depends on your definition of "mass murder", hey?

It wasn't murder at all.

Nobody was killed for protesting. People were killed for stopping the military from doing its job.



The Chinese used tear gas, the protesters stoned the troops. And the protesters still wouldn't leave. They turned to stronger means afterward.



It wasn't murder at all.

Pathetic sophistry. The military were there because they were protesting; thus "stopping the military from doing its job", when its job was to stop them protesting, equates to them being killed for protesting.

The protest turned violent following an APC running over some demonstrators.

If it wasn't murder, what was it?

Pathetic sophistry. The military were there because they were protesting; thus "stopping the military from doing its job", when its job was to stop them protesting, equates to them being killed for protesting.

The protest turned violent following an APC running over some demonstrators.

If it wasn't murder, what was it?

The military didn't kill protesters, they killed those who blocked their way to the protesters.

It was killing, not murder.

The military didn't kill protesters, they killed those who blocked their way to the protesters.

It was killing, not murder.

You have got to be kidding. Who blocked their way to the protesters? Other protesters! And since those other protesters were not threatening the lives of the military in any way, killing them was murder.

What are you, public relations for the Chinese Communist Party? I can't imagine why anyone would go to such effort to blatantly twist the truth about this...

'Way too harsh'?
Have you any idea how many were killed there? Official estimates are around a 1000, but unofficial estimates put it closer to 10 000.
Considering how much and how often the Chinese govt lies about their stats, I'm going for the higher figure.

So you refer to killing 10 000 unarmed protesters as 'too harsh' needing an 'apology' but you can understand why the govt needed to do it.

*shakes head*

10000? You got an offical link to that? Most Offical sources are between 300 and 2500. yes, they need an appology. What else can be done? They can't bring back the protestors.


FYI, these people were protesting about govt corruption. It started over the death of Hu Yaobang who once was party general secretary but was forced to resign over his clashes with Deng Xiaoping because he was much more liberal minded who wanted China to be more open and capitalist. He promoted the (terribly nasty socialist) ideas of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. On his death the official party view of Hu was pretty dreadful.
The students started protesting, wanting a much better and supportive party view of Hu but were ignored. This led to further and larger protesters which culminated in a 100 000 peaceful march through Beijing ending at Tianamen square where they requested to see and talk to the authorities. This was also refused. The students then started a hunger strike in the square demanding to be seen by the government and that the accusations made in the People's Daily editorial (that they were dissidents and terrorists) be withdrawn.
A week later the army were sent in to crush them.

Yes I know what happened...I am taking an Asian history class and I just did a reseach project on it. When doing an objective analysis you have to look at both sides.

And you support the Chinese govt to crush a bunch of very hungry peaceful protesters, who's main demands were for more freedom of speech and freedon of the press.

I never said I supported with it. I said I understand were they are coming from. Big difference. Odviously I am against a military crack down and I am very supportive of the students cause.

You're living in the wrong era. Build a time machine, head back 70 years and book a ticket to Germany. You'd fit in there perfectly.

How dare you accuse me of being a Nazi. Very mature......

The Pro-Democracy Students? That's a laugh. Those students were also protesting for MORE socialism. They were a huge threat. On a smaller note, they were also protesting against letting blacks in Shanghai Colleges, but that's not as important as the fact that they were SOCIALISTS.

Though there would have been a better way to deal with Tiananmen Square, I cannot condemn China for chasing away the Socialists. If they got too big, it would have threatened the westerinzation of China, and how it has made the journey to turn into a Capitalist Society.

Though there could be more peaceful ways to do this, I will not condem the PRC'S action.
So what's it like living on Bizarro Earth?

You have got to be kidding. Who blocked their way to the protesters? Other protesters! And since those other protesters were not threatening the lives of the military in any way, killing them was murder.

What are you, public relations for the Chinese Communist Party? I can't imagine why anyone would go to such effort to blatantly twist the truth about this...

It doesn't matter who they were, my point was they weren't killed for protesting, but for halting the military, etc.

Its not murder. If it had been murder, troops would have been tried. Murder is illegal killing. Those troops had orders to complete the mission. They did what they had to do. If it had been illegal, the chinese govt. would have come down on them.

If you don't agree with me, fine. But you don't have to be a dick. Im sorry if you can't tolerate opinions other than your own.

.
Remember the Boston Massacre (back in US colonial period)
was only 4 people killed. But disgusting non-the-less.



Oh please dont mention that, that was a bit of propaganda spread by the colonists, they were throwing rocks at the british soldiers, im impressed at the restraint of only killing 4, and before people atack me for this post remember that a rock is a deadly weapon.

It doesn't matter who they were, my point was they weren't killed for protesting, but for halting the military, etc.

Its not murder. If it had been murder, troops would have been tried. Murder is illegal killing. Those troops had orders to complete the mission. They did what they had to do. If it had been illegal, the chinese govt. would have come down on them.

If you don't agree with me, fine. But you don't have to be a dick. Im sorry if you can't tolerate opinions other than your own.

I can tolerate all sorts of opinions, but what you have been saying is just beyond bizarre. How is a totalitarian government qualified to decide what is murder and what is killing? Pol Pot never charged his soldiers with genocide, does that make it legitimate? Laws don't have any inherent value, they are there for a reason and in an undemocratic country have little moral weight.

I'd agree that the troops were completing their (unjustifiable) mission and that the ultimate blame liees with the Chinese government.

Can someone tell me what happened in 1942??

I know about Dresden(in 1944 wasn't it??) but I've never heard anything about the Allies doing something in 1942. :confused:

It doesn't matter who they were, my point was they weren't killed for protesting, but for halting the military, etc.Yes, just like a lot of convicts are "shot on the run"...

Can someone tell me what happened in 1942??

I know about Dresden(in 1944 wasn't it??) but I've never heard anything about the Allies doing something in 1942. :confused:
Consequently, in February 1942, Bomber Command was instructed to shift the focus onto the 'morale of the enemy civil population'. This new policy came to be called 'area bombing'.Source (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/area_bombing_02.shtml)

Oh please dont mention that, that was a bit of propaganda spread by the colonists, they were throwing rocks at the british soldiers, im impressed at the restraint of only killing 4, and before people atack me for this post remember that a rock is a deadly weapon.

Indeed, the poor colonists did indeed attack us first, we merely responded, and furthermore, if 4 people is now quantified as a massacre, my word there are countless every day.

The military didn't kill protesters, they killed those who blocked their way to the protesters.

It was killing, not murder.

Let us consider the following, the killing of another human being, by a human, by any direct means, is murder, and we must consider Tianmanen square accordingly.

Let us consider the following, the killing of another human being, by a human, by any direct means, is murder, and we must consider Tianmanen square accordingly.

No, it is not. Look up the freaking definitions.

Murder is illegal killing.

Killing is killing.

No, it is not. Look up the freaking definitions.

Murder is illegal killing.

Killing is killing.

Incidentally, is the killing of pro-democratic protestors to be considers both acceptable an legal?

No disrespect to the thread initator... But...

I'm not Chinese, but I do live in China, and have done for some time. I'm in a position where I see the reality, every day, on the streets.

The ruling class here are inhuman animals. Pure and simple.

The ruling class here are inhuman animals. Pure and simple.


Wow, sounds like every country/society, none withstanding.




still, dehumanizing others can bring grave consequences.
perhaps best to avoid this quality we don't like in whomever.

It was the students faults.

The government made it clear that they didn't accept what the protestors were doing. They took the risk of defying the totalitarian society.

Helping free slaves was once illegal, and I would fully support someone in 1845 being punished for doing so. Breaking the law isn't the correct way to try to change it.

I'm not in the buisness of anything, elsewise I would expect some paychecks from the PRC. However, I believe that Totalitarianism is a valid form of governance. Its not one I probably prefer, but still valid.

Those who died had the chance not to.

Fault and intent are two very different things. Did the students intend to defy the government: yes. Did they know that they could get killed: most of them did. Did they intend to make the government choose between breaking up the protest or not: possibly. But does sparking an overreaction shift the fault to the protesters? Of course not! What about Gandhi? What about Martin Luther King? Was the government violence sparked by their protests their fault? The fault for a murder lies not with the victim, but with the killer and the killer alone. There is no excuse for machine-gunning innocent protestors simply because they refuse to move out of the way.

Fault and intent are two very different things. Did the students intend to defy the government: yes. Did they know that they could get killed: most of them did. Did they intend to make the government choose between breaking up the protest or not: possibly. But does sparking an overreaction shift the fault to the protesters? Of course not! What about Gandhi? What about Martin Luther King? Was the government violence sparked by their protests their fault? The fault for a murder lies not with the victim, but with the killer and the killer alone. There is no excuse for machine-gunning innocent protestors simply because they refuse to move out of the way.

You say "of course not". I disagree.

These protesters knew the risks. Not one of them had to die. They died because they put themselves in front of tanks, threw rocks and molotovs at troops, etc.

There is not excuse for machine-gunning innocent protestors. Find me some innocent protestors who were gunned down, and you have an argument.