"There was No Massacre in Tianamen Square"

[RobertX]

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tiananmen-squa...es-1451053

For those who think they knew that the Tiananmen Square Massacre took place, according to the above link, you're wrong!

Learning something new everyday.

[dueda]

Who knows who tells the truth? Nowadays we've live cams everywhere and still we crawl in ignorance.

[Headbanger]

From your article:

True, no one denies that large numbers of citizens and students were killed near the Square by soldiers seemingly out of control. But why?

No massacre, just a lot of people killed! Totally different, right?

Its clickbait, and the source has a bad history of pulling of crap articles and elevating rubbish.

[LZA]

YA...We live in an age were even reputable sources now spread the fake news... I question everything... I fell for the Okie-Doke a few times...

[dueda]

Article says the protesters started hostility with Molotovs and soldiers retaliated with gunfire, but not much detail beyond that.
Sounds like just stirring debate as a celebrities scandals tabloid. Let's go back to the White House internals and Hollywood starlets.

[RobertX]

You guys are just brainwashed by Trump.

There were no massacres. According to eye witnesses, the protest ended peacefully.

---

EDIT: Anyway, those aren't my arguments, it's the arguments of the pundits in another thread that talks about the backlash of the Hong Kong extradition bill. I was presenting them to you guys, and wanted to see what you guys think.

I just think it's full of shit, but don't worry if your ideas differ, because I can be open-minded.

[Headbanger]

Eyewitness accounts are one of the worst sources for verifiable information. Its just a step above not having any sources at all. But to counter. I would be skeptical of anything that bases their information solely off of eyewitness sources.

Death toll

The number of deaths and the extent of bloodshed in the Square itself have been in dispute since the events. Chinese authorities actively suppressed discussion of casualty figures immediately after the events, and estimates rely heavily on eyewitness testimony, hospital records, and organized efforts by victims' relatives. As a result, large discrepancies exist among various casualty estimates. Initial estimates ranged from the official figure of a few hundred to several thousand.[173]
Official figures

Official Chinese government announcements shortly after the event put the number of dead at around 300. At the State Council press conference on 6 June, spokesman Yuan Mu said that "preliminary tallies" by the government showed that about 300 civilians and soldiers died, including 23 students from universities in Beijing, along with a number of people he described as "ruffians".[165][174] Yuan also said some 5,000 soldiers and police along with 2,000 civilians were wounded. On June 19, Beijing Party Secretary Li Ximing reported to the Politburo that the government's confirmed death toll was 241, including 218 civilians (of which 36 were students), 10 PLA soldiers and 13 People's Armed Police, along with 7,000 wounded.[127][175] Mayor Chen Xitong said on June 30 that the number of injured was around 6,000.[174]
Other estimates

On the morning of June 4, many estimates of deaths were reported, including from government-affiliated sources. Peking University leaflets circulated on campus suggested a death toll of between two to three thousand. The Chinese Red Cross had given a figure of 2,600 deaths, but later denied having given such a figure.[2][3] The Swiss Ambassador had estimated 2,700.[4] Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times wrote on June 21 that "it seems plausible that about a dozen soldiers and policemen were killed, along with 400 to 800 civilians."[5] United States ambassador James Lilley said that, based on visits to hospitals around Beijing, a minimum of several hundred had been killed.[c] A declassified National Security Agency cable filed on the same day estimated 180–500 deaths up to the morning of 4 June.[6] Beijing hospital records compiled shortly after the events recorded at least 478 dead and 920 wounded.[176] Amnesty International's estimates put the number of deaths at between several hundred and close to 1,000,[2][7] while a Western diplomat who compiled estimates put the number at 300 to 1,000.[5] In a widely reported declassified cable sent in the aftermath of the events at Tiananmen, British ambassador Sir Alan Donald initially claimed, based on information from a "good friend" in the China State Council, that a minimum of 10,000 civilians died,[177] an estimated number much higher than other sources.[178] After this declassification, former student protest leader Feng Congde pointed out Sir Donald later revised his estimate to 2,700–3,400 deaths, a number more consistent with other estimates.[179]
Identifying the dead

The Tiananmen Mothers, a victims' advocacy group co-founded by Ding Zilin and Zhang Xianling, whose children were killed during the crackdown, have identified 202 victims as of August 2011. The group has worked painstakingly, in the face of government interference, to locate victims' families and collect information about the victims. Their tally has grown from 155 in 1999 to 202 in 2011. The list includes four individuals who committed suicide on or after 4 June, for reasons that related to their involvement in the demonstrations.[180][d]

Former protester Wu Renhua of the Chinese Alliance for Democracy, an overseas group agitating for democratic reform in China, said that he was only able to verify and identify 15 military deaths. Wu asserts that if deaths from events unrelated to demonstrators were removed from the count, only seven deaths among military personnel may be counted as those "killed in action" by rioters.[125]

Deaths in Tiananmen Square itself

Chinese government officials have long asserted that no one died in the Square itself in the early morning hours of 4 June, during the 'hold-out' of the last batch of students in the south of the Square. Initially foreign media reports of a "massacre" on the Square were prevalent, though subsequently journalists have acknowledged that most of the deaths occurred outside of the Square in western Beijing. Several people who were situated around the square that night, including former Beijing bureau chief of The Washington Post Jay Mathews[e] and CBS correspondent Richard Roth[f] reported that while they had heard sporadic gunfire, they could not find enough evidence to suggest that a massacre took place on the Square itself.

Similarly, in 2011, three secret cables from the United States embassy in Beijing claimed that there was no bloodshed inside Tiananmen Square itself. A Chilean diplomat who had been positioned next to a Red Cross station inside the square told his US counterparts that he did not observe any mass firing of weapons into the crowds of the square itself, although sporadic gunfire was heard. He said that most of the troops which entered the square were armed only with anti-riot gear.[183] Records by the Tiananmen Mothers suggest that three students died in the Square the night of the Army's push into the Square.[g]

Chinese scholar Wu Renhua, who was present at the protests, wrote that the government's discussion of the issue was a red herring intended to absolve itself of responsibility and showcase its benevolence. Wu said that it was irrelevant whether the shooting occurred inside or outside of the Square itself, as it was still a reprehensible massacre of unarmed civilians:

“Really, whether the fully equipped army of troops massacred peaceful ordinary folks inside or outside the Square makes very little difference. It is not even worthwhile to have this discussion at all.“[h]

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiana...e_protests [with ample citations in its references section]

You think what is full of shit, that the massacre took place or that people are claiming it didn't?

[RobertX]

The latter.

Sadly, there are still people that are living in a bubble. When someone disagrees with them, they say that they're "brainwashed and happy with it." What a a bunch of bitchfucks.

[CaptButler]

Eyewitness accounts are one of the worst sources for verifiable information.

. . . .

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiana...e_protests [with ample citations in its references section]

Using one source of dubious reliability to discredit another source of dubious reliability doesn't really work.  How do know that?  Well for one, I myself was a writer on Wikipedia several years ago.  Yeah, I know, I know.  That just makes me yet another one of those "eyewitnesses".  *sigh*

[Headbanger]

Wikipedia is well sourced and has its own quality control guidelines, vs a website with known failed fact checks citing eyewitnesses. Its not a game where because a source isn't perfect it is lumped with all the bad sources, that the only options are perfect or bad; its a game where sources can be qualitatively better or worse than each other. In this case, Wikipedia is a stronger source do to having stronger citations.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wikipedia/ <-- wikipedia
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/internati...ess-times/ <-- international business times [OP article source]