all 96 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 72 points 4 months ago (32 children)

.ml is in shambles right now.

  • source
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] [S] 58 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Why? Clearly, those are all reactionary CIAnarchists attempting a Color Revolution, and besides, whatabout America???

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Amerikkka*

    Silly anarkiddies could never understand how important it is to enforce enlighten the proletariat into not criticizing the beautiful state! Natural communism by 2050!!1!

    ^/s^

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 24 points 4 months ago* (23 children)
  • [–] 38 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    But, there is a lot of misinfo surrounding it. Like "Thousands died on the square". Probably not true. Probaby 200 - 500 civilians died, and several dozen soldiers

    I presume it is no coincidence that this death toll is almost exactly in line with the CCP's official estimates.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    But the Chinese Red Cross estimate of 2,600 was retracted and was the highest estimate.

    Modern scholars estimate 700 to 2,600 dead in or around the square during the massacre. Do you have a source showing that the Chinese Red Cross estimate was the highest one?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 21 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah 200 people is a massacre, even if we take the official Chinese account at face value

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    Definitely. It was still an atrocity. No two ways about it. It's just also an atrocity that the West has grabbed onto to push a broader propagandized anti-communist narrative.

    Both of those things are true. I am a socialist and I have zero problem saying that Tiananmen, based on my understanding of the historical accounts I've read, was an atrocity and a very bad mishandling of events by the army/government.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (11 children)

    Not unlike the many examples of similar killings of protesters by the US gov't.

    Refresh my memory when was the last time the us government killed two hundred to five hundred protesters?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

    I personally count the Banana's massacre, which resulted in an estimated 2000 protesters dead. While the shooting was made by Colombian soldiers instead of US soldiers, it was a direct result of the US Goverment's threat of invading Colombia if the protest done by United Fruit Company workers was not inmediately put to a stop.

    EDIT: I think the above comment is a misleading. A better description of the massacre is that it was done to serve US economical interests, aided by US's military pressure (like US officials asking US army forces to send a warship into the zone) and a possible risk of invasion from US into Colombia's mainland. I also think a possibly more accurate number of protestors dead is ~1500. I do stand on the opinion that the massacre was a direct consequence of US Government, simply perpetrated by Colombian soldiers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    U.S. officials in Colombia and United Fruit representatives portrayed the workers' strike as "communist" with a "subversive tendency" in telegrams to Frank B. Kellogg, the United States Secretary of State.[3] The Colombian government was also compelled to work for the interests of the company, considering they could cut off trade of Colombian bananas with significant markets such as the United States and Europe.[4]

    General Carlos Cortés Vargas, who commanded the troops during the massacre, took responsibility for 47 casualties. In reality, the exact number of casualties has never been confirmed. Herrera Soto, co-author of a comprehensive and detailed study of the 1928 strike, has put together various estimates given by contemporaries and historians, ranging from 47 to as high as 2,000. According to Congressman Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, the killed strikers were thrown into the sea.[1] Other sources claim that the bodies were buried in mass graves.[2]

    Banana Massacre

    Two thousand was the extreme high estimate for the dead by the Colombian government but do you have a source for the ‘it was a direct result of the US Goverment's threat of invading Colombia if the protest done by United Fruit Company workers was not inmediately put to a stop’ because all I can find is that Colombia’s bananas could no longer be exported?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Note that some estimates also put the number on 5000. This letter to the US Goverment from the Colombian embassy puts the number, sourced from the United Fruit Company, in the 1000+ range. Jorge Eliécer Gaitán also puts the number in the thousands. I think ~1500 sounds like a reasonable estimate. (unrelated trivia fact: Gaitán is an incredibly important character in Colombia history, as he was murdered when running for president, which turned Bogotá into a complete chaos/warzone in 1948, in something called the Bogotazo).

    do you have a source for the ‘it was a direct result of the US Goverment’s threat of invading Colombia if the protest done by United Fruit Company workers was not inmediately put to a stop’ because all I can find is that Colombia’s bananas could no longer be exported?

    Wikipedia in Spanish has the following (translated):

    [...] The clashes between the United Fruit Company and the army on one side and the workers on the other, over the breaking of the strike on December 3 and 4, gave General Carlos Cortés Vargas yet another justification for repression. In his memoirs of the strike, he states that he became convinced that if public order was not restored immediately, the U.S. government would send Marines. Rumors of U.S. warships were rife.[...]

    This letter from an US counsul in Santa Marta also asks the US Goverment for warship support, which support Cortés Vargas story. I also found the following letters, which show US offered "unofficial support" to the Company. This article says that Carlos Cortés got reinforcements from the center of the country, as to minimize the sympathy that the protestors would receive from the soldiers; IMO, this indicates the hard tackle down was not simply an irresponsible act from Cortés who wrongly guessed US had intentions to land marine soldiers, but it shows it was a clear coordinated effort from the Colombian Goverment.

    I do regret the use of the word "inmediately" and 2000 number from my comment. Will edit my previous comment to amend that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    Yeah, plenty of massacres abroad where the US is at least partially responsible for, but basically none at home. Makes me wonder why?

    I suspect generally the US doesn't do massacres because they don't need to be afraid of regime change. Their internal propaganda is incredibly strong. We've recently seen how foreign agitation propaganda (Russian online trolls, but also Bin-laden's destabilization strategy) completely changed the political landscape. And even in today's times of extreme crisis we still see not an inkling of any kind of revolution or regime change on the horizon. Since there is no real threat, there is no overreaction to a threat response, unlike in countries that are actively and publicly being targeted for regime change.

    Maybe this will change after the 2026 midterms, but I doubt it.

    The US is also very proactive and skilled when it comes to infiltrating and dispersing any groups that could become threats to their state power.

    And the mainstream media can spin protests however the government wants to - but only as long as there is no massacre.

    Basically there are no massacres because protests are harmless and it would be counter productive, unlike protests in other countries.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    Not a lot of domestic mass casualty events in modern times, especially with death tolls above 200. That's true. But there are some truly horrific ones in more turbulent times in US history, particularly when the US was a younger country and cops didn'thave riot dispersal gear/less-lethal ammo. You have to remember that China as it exists today didn't really exist until 1949 at the end of the civil war.

    In the US there's lots of historic ones. Many of which happened closer to our civil war (in the following decades) - wounded knee, atlanta race riots, tulsa massacre, etc. Hundreds died in all those and were extremely fucked up.

    Then there's more modern ones like the LA race riots in 1992 which killed like 60+ people minimum. Detroit race riots in the 1960s with a death toll of ~50 iirc. Like 40 people died in the BLM protests just a few years ago. Fatalities are largely lower due to cops using less-lethal weaponry.

    It's a different historical and tech context. I'd say they aren't directly comparable. But yeah the US gov't hasn't killed 200-500 protesters in a single event within the last 100 years afaik.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    You fuckers do that mostly overseas and call it "that school was definitely an evil lair full of satan and aids"

    Here you have a full wikipedia page of them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Massacres_committed_by_the_United_States

    It is by no means full.

    Internally, on your own soil, you do have few famous ones I can name from memory like Tulsa and Orangeburg, and I am too disgusted to even try to google it and find more.

    To be fair (so I don't shit on USA only in this message), I can name 1 French massacre from the 60s against Algerian protesters and it was over 200 dead.

    I don't think we had any more in the EU, but I'm willing to be schooled.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 1 point 4 months ago* (3 children)
  • load more comments (-2 replies)
    [–] 39 points 4 months ago* (4 children)

    FAKE! This is real, original image, by trustworthy CCP

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    I think something like this could happen in the US soon, including an attempted cover up

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    Tulsa race masscare. I had an American flatmate who hadn't even heard of them before. Apparently not something they were taught at school.

    Here in Sweden we had the Ådalen shootings, which lead to decades of social democracy and improved worker's rights. It's all going down the drain now thanks to the bourgeoisie and alt-right influence campaigns.

    I love the collapse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)

    There are a lot of bad things covered in our schools, but that wasn't one of them. I learned about it from an HBO show, sadly enough. We did learn a lot about the massacre of the Native Americans. I certainly don't know much about other countries checkered past, but something tells me they editorialize their history when they can. Heck, I know the UK wouldn't have time for Maths if they tried to cover all the terrible shit they've done (I know the US wouldn't either).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Here in Sweden we definitely didn’t give much room for the horrible stuff we got up to during WWII.

    We like to pretend that we were neutral, but we were rather on board with the Nazi philosophies in a lot of ways. Racial biology was a big thing, and we did experiment on our native population.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 33 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Countdown to tankies calling them all western imperialist agitators!

    3...2... oh wait they're already here!

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 4 months ago*

    Well, you see, the bullets were actually LEAVING the protestors.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago* (4 children)
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    What's going on with the bus in that photo? Why is there so much smoke around it?

    also the color version makes it much easier to see that there are no dead bodies in the photo, I thought this was proof of a massacre?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago

    Riiight, because I'm sure all those cyclists just left their bikes in the street because they weren't running in terror to flee a barrage of lead...

    What's going on with the bus in that photo? Why is there so much smoke around it?

    Gee, I'll give you three guesses...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 6 points 4 months ago

    also the color version makes it much easier to see that there are no dead bodies in the photo,

    The ability of fascists to look at something and see nothing but what the State tells them to is astounding.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago

    Buses on fire, one on the left, another on the upper right, whether by the protesters or the army, impossible to say from the photo alone. Most of the charred junk on the street is leftovers of the protesters encampment

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    I dunno. The CCP would call it "AI slop".

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (29 children)
  • [–] 18 points 4 months ago (21 children)

    Congratulations!

    You just earned five dessalines dollars!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (20 children)

    Seriously where are the dead people?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago* (19 children)

    Seriously I think you just earned another five dessalines dollars!

    Getting closer to retirement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (18 children)

    What the fuck is wrong with you

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 4 months ago (17 children)
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (16 children)

    Using your powers for good, I see?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (15 children)

    I’m sorry but I don’t follow you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (14 children)

    I don't like you and think very poorly of you, all of my interactions with you have been negative, but it's nice to see you arguing on the rational side for a change.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (13 children)

    Just because you’ve disagreed with other things I say doesn’t mean it’s not the rational side.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (12 children)

    That's obviously what my opp would want me to think. Nice try

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (11 children)

    Sorry but I don't really place you.

    What did we disagree on?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (10 children)

    Most recently, a distinction between rockstars having sex with underage but willing partners and people being forcibly raped. You were on team "Same picture"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Oh yeah I remember that now.

    You were talking about the consenting nature of fourteen year olds and I took the stance that a fourteen year old can never consent to being raped by an adult.

    So you think my stance there is irrational?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    I'm not restarting this argument if you're immediately starting disingenuously. You don't want to have a good natured argument, you want to be right. Fine man, you're right, you win, you aren't a loser or anything like that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 4 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Legally yea, of course. Do you also think forced rape is the same as consensual statutory rape? That's the distinction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 4 months ago

    Legally yea, of course. Do you also think forced rape is the same as consensual statutory rape? That’s the distinction.

    Done knowingly, statutory rape is rarely morally different than rape by force or drugs. Or child molestation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    Fourteen years olds can't consent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    Can they consent to other 14 year olds?

    You're deliberately using one definition of a word as it suits your argument

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Fourteen year olds can consent with other fourteen year olds because they're similarly developed and there shouldn't be a massive power indifference like there is between a fourteen year old and an adult rock star.

    But a fourteen year old can not consent to being raped by an adult.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Go ahead, nobody is stopping you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Oh. So your brain is that cooked. Wow.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    How could I? After all, those people splayed on the tarmac are just taking a nice nap.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Oh no! They killed the bicycles 😩

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    NOOOOO ! NOT THE BICYCLES 😨how could china do this

  • source
  • [+] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 18 points 4 months ago*

    I couldn't read all of that with s straight face, some claims were correct (the protest was - also - against capitalistic Deng reforms and China inevitable descent into imperialistic capitalism), some claims were flatearthy. Like this:

    The protestors in Tiananmen were mostly students who did not represent the great mass of Chinese citizens, but instead represented a layer of the intelligentsia who wanted to be elevated and given more privileges such as more political power and higher wages.

    They were demanding that, because the party went with Deng reforms, that made the country capitalistic empire it is today. The so called "intelligentsia" were literally trying to enforce power to stay with proletariat. If we were to attach a spinning wheel to Lenin's corpse, we could power the whole Southern Hemisphere.

    Oh, and the gradder then bolded this:

    [Massacre victims were soldier trapped in tanks] sabotaged by radical youth leaders seemingly bent on bloodshed.

    If that were to be true, it would be radical communist youth leaders. You know, protesting against capitalism.

  • source
  • parent