It's hard to imagine a soldier carrying out these acts. They all start off as ordinary people so what is the journey from that to a mental state where they will commit those acts on other citizens.
Stanford Prison Experiment
Tiananmen Square 1989 death toll was at least 10,000 according to UK documents
201–210 of 242 posts
Re: Tiananmen Square 1989 death toll was at least 10,000 according to UK documents
#202It's hard to imagine a soldier carrying out these acts. They all start off as ordinary people so what is the journey from that to a mental state where they will commit those acts on other citizens.
there is a reason people are drafted into army when they are just basically overgrown boys with malleable brain/mentality.
I heard about one other aspect to Tiananmen - 20 years before Tiananmen the young generation back then perpetrated the Cultural Revolution with all the related mass crimes and violence, in particular against the representatives of the older generations. To them, now 40-50 years old, the students at Tiananmen looked like the start of possibly something similar to Cultural Revolution and having been perpetrators themselves, they were very afraid of such a new thing starting, especially with them now possibly being the target, and this is why the society was in general ok with the thing crushed mercilessly right at the beginning. Again, i'm not a China expert, just heard/read things along these lines, and being from USSR (where in particular young revolutionaries fervor had been a thing) find such situation and its explanation pretty plausible.
Re: Tiananmen Square 1989 death toll was at least 10,000 according to UK documents
#203> The figure was given in a secret diplomatic cable from then British ambassador to China, Alan Donald. > Mr Donald's telegram is from 5 June, and he says his source was someone who "was passing on information given him by a close friend who is currently a member of the State Council". Here we have a telegram by a guy (British Ambassador) who heard from a guy (unknown) who heard from a guy (unknown State Council) fac…
The problem with demanding better sourcing and information about this event is that has been brutally suppressed for thirty years. The attitude you espouse, while normally the correct one, here only serves the interests of the censors to suppress the truth.
The Chinese government should certainly be judged based on rumors such as these, until they open up their archives and allow free investigation of the events.
Re: Tiananmen Square 1989 death toll was at least 10,000 according to UK documents
#204> The figure was given in a secret diplomatic cable from then British ambassador to China, Alan Donald. > Mr Donald's telegram is from 5 June, and he says his source was someone who "was passing on information given him by a close friend who is currently a member of the State Council". Here we have a telegram by a guy (British Ambassador) who heard from a guy (unknown) who heard from a guy (unknown State Council) fac…
[deleted]
Re: Tiananmen Square 1989 death toll was at least 10,000 according to UK documents
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
When some effort is made to stop erasing history and start learning lessons from it, we can talk about forgiveness. Until then "forgiveness" is an aloof and silly gesture that serves only to whitewash history and trivialize the concept of forgiveness. Edit (since I can't reply any further): @Fricken: you're right. I feel perfectly comfortable making "overtures" that we not whitewash the massacre of 10,000 civilians.…
History is broad and complex and multifaceted. People who dedicate their lives to the study of history still feel like they don't have a clear picture. Yet here you are, acting like your shit don't drink, examining history through a tiny little pinhole, while making overtures about how it's wrong to whitewash it.
Nothing glenstein said was incorrect. Why are you reacting in such a hostile manner? You seem to have an axe to grind.
Re: Tiananmen Square 1989 death toll was at least 10,000 according to UK documents
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't claim to be an expert on any of this, but it's pretty clear that China is unwilling to deny trade with North Korea, effectively propping up the Kim regime. Kim is engaging in increasingly dangerous provocations (admittedly provoked by the fact that the United States is still fighting the Korean War).
Their trade with North Korea has been cut in half since last year, and they've repeatedly supported increased sanctions, including yesterday . Here in the United States it's popular to isolate nations on the far side of the planet, where we don't have to directly deal with the horrific consequences. But North Korea borders China, and the Chinese will need to deal with the effects of a full or partial North Korean col…
This is fair. Anyway, sanctions of this sort are absolutely immoral unless a government is willing to take on all affected refugees, which is very very rarely the case. Human rights abuses are difficult to solve without open borders, but unfortunately open borders are politically infeasible.
Re: Tiananmen Square 1989 death toll was at least 10,000 according to UK documents
#207Let us not forget that all countries today face major problems politically. The world is being polarised in multiple ways and those countries that at one time had the appearance of moral superiority have fallen to the same levels as those they oppose.
Totalitarianism comes in may forms. Countries such as China and Russia have specific characteristics that US, Britain, Germany, Canada, Australia, etc, etc, etc are trying to emulate.
Freedom is a lost art today and jingoism has risen its head again.
Re: Tiananmen Square 1989 death toll was at least 10,000 according to UK documents
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
China wouldn't become as what it is today if they didn't do it. There could not be economic growth during political instability. Life of a billion+ people is now better and in hindsight i guess it was worth it.
bullshit. or maybe the Chinese communist would have been overthrown, and they would have had a better government. all the progress China's made today is because the communist government took their foot off of the necks of the common citizens, and let the citizens work tears and sweats. Stop using what-ifs to justify monstrocities.
You think Russia did a better job after getting rid of their communist party around the same time?
Re: Tiananmen Square 1989 death toll was at least 10,000 according to UK documents
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do realize that there are other scenarios, such as North Korea launching nuclear strike into Silicon Valley or New York? Would you prefer that? or North Korea failing quietly like the collapse of USSR?
You've been hoodwinked by clickbait media. North Korea won't strike Silicon Valley or New York, ever. If you want to worry about that, you might as well worry about China or Russia striking New York: after all, there's a chance Putin will be alive after nuclear war, but there's zero chance Kim Jong Un will be alive after nuking America. But you can't sell prospect of a nuclear war against China, because people have i…
> But you can't sell prospect of a nuclear war against China, because people have iPhones made in China
There are other reasons why going to war against China wouldn't be that advisable.
http://www.businessinsider.com/navy-chinese-microchips-weapo...
https://www.wired.com/2011/11/counterfeit-missile-defense/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fake-parts-in-hercules-aircr...
Re: Tiananmen Square 1989 death toll was at least 10,000 according to UK documents
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet the U.S. is at risk right now, simply for supporting South Korea militarily in both past and present. Alliances are double-edged swords. I'm curious, what would be your perspective if the U.S. decided that South Korea was no longer worth defending and pulled it's troops back to Guam and Okinawa?
> what would be your perspective if the U.S. decided that South Korea was no longer worth defending ... You mean, what if the US decided that keeping an air force base within 1000 km of Beijing isn't worth the cost? Well, it that case, it sucks, because our national defense budget will likely have to increase a lot. But an independent country cannot outsource its defense to others forever, so South Korea should have…
What does the US get out of having a military presence in South Korea? Sure, we have a base that's closer to our "enemy" than we would if we were just in Japan. But at this point, the US isn't going to win a war with a land army, so even if it was for aggressive military purposes, it wouldn't be nearly as effective as you think it would be.
Hint: maybe we keep military bases in SK to defend South Korean, because over the past 67 years of our alliance, South Korea has become a fantastic trade partner and we want to ensure that such a mutually beneficial relationship continues far into the future.