I received a mail tonight that left me feeling somewhat cold – stunned perhaps.
What I read – and what you are about to read – in retrospect, probably comes as no surprise.
CIA involvement in the de-stablisation of nation states is no real secret, from the assassination of Chilean President Salvador Allende in 1973 to current de-stablisations in Syria and elsewhere. Even Australia has been potentially effected by the CIA’s belief that it is the world’s policeman – there is sufficient evidence now linking the mysterious drowning death of Australian Prime Minister Harold Holt in 1967 to foul play.
Back to China. Everyone’s heard of the “massacre” in Tiananmen square back in 1989. Each year the world’s media trots it out again. But what REALLY happened?
Familiar image, right?
The PLA Army shooting students, right?
I mean isn’t that what happened? We saw it on TV.
In this photo, according to Malcolm Moore, students are actually protecting others from attacking the soldiers.
Why, you might ask, would we believe this Malcolm Moore, and not the TV news?
Well, from the evidence of people who were actually there, in the square, in 1989.
Take Kui, for example, a young Tianjin student at the time who went with other Tianjin-ers to Tiananmen. Kui wonders that given that Tianjin is only a short distance from Tianjin and provided much of the non-Beijing student population, why could he find no one who knew of any student deaths in Tianjin, if a massacre had have occurred? Kui also recalls how he felt surprised when one of the student leaders, Chai Ling, forbid hunger-strikers to be be taken to hospital.
There’s the Chilean Ambassador, if you prefer your witnesses to be non-Chinese and non-students.
The Chilean Ambassador to Beijing at the time reported he was easily able to walk to the square at the night of the so-called ‘massacre’ and troops saw him but did not try to stop him.
He also insisted there was no mass firing, and that the troops who entered the square were riot control only – carrying only truncheons and clubs ( ie no guns).
What about the soldiers who according to the western media shot the students?
Apart from never having had any evidence, the world media conveniently shut down evidence to the contrary. Nicolas Kristoff, a New York Times Reporter, who was actually in Beijing, at Tiananmen Square, filed a report back saying no massacre had occurred and there had been no crackdown. His report was conveniently “lost”. ( source: http://nsnbc.me/2013/04/29/lets-talk-about-tiananmen-square-1989-my-hearsay-is-better-than-your-hearsay/)
The afore-mentioned Chilean Ambassador says the soldiers he saw in Tiananmen were armed with only truncheons and clubs – no firearms.
What there was, however, evidence of, was that there was “outside agitators” OUTSIDE of Tiananmen that night. And that those “outside agitators” began attacking the army first.
The grisly photos that the western media did not print can be found at this link
According to eye-witness accounts, students and local people were saying “the soldiers aren’t our enemy” and “hey, there’s people in those tanks, we have to save them” but the agitators were ruthless. The agitators, according to the eyewitness, had Molotov cocktails at a time when gasoline was very expensive in Beijing.
Then there are plenty of eye-witnesses, including foreign journalists, who saw the students all leave peacefully that night, and the following morning, when the tanks came in, they came in to clean up the huge amounts of garbage from a three-week sit in.
Oh, sorry, there were some journalists who did see the massacre. They saw it from their position in the Beijing Hotel, and reported as such. Pity that the Beijing Hotel is not within eyesight distance of Tiananmen. Oh, those journalists were from the USA.
And yet, we also know that the powers that be in the USA knew that there had been no massacre – thanks to Wikileaks.
Ever wonder what happened to the “student leaders”? Remember, one Chai Ling who told ambulance workers they could not take away the sickly hunger strikers? She was given an honourary degree in Political Science and a secure job.
All the other ‘student leaders’ whilst telling the gathered students they should prefer “death to retreat” – chose retreat themselves, spirited away to Hong Kong, Taiwan, and eventually the USA – all on handsome packages now.
If you’ve stayed with me this long – consider these following quotes that I’ve found as I’ve been wandering around the world wide web much too late at night.
Westerners are hopelessly trapped in a view of the world constructed for them by their media. As Martin Jacques said, the West have not had to understand the developing world, because they have the might to not care nsnbc international daily
When the PLA failed to fill Beijing with the blood of “thousands” of student democracy martyrs, Washington could simply go with fabrication of a fantasy or virtual massacre and, because of its overwhelming control of mainstream media; most of the world could believe the Washington version.
One thing I have been kept thinking was the role of the VOA.( voice of America) Many students were the fans of the radio station before, during and shortly after the student movement. Even when we were on the square many students were listening to their programs as if only they could tell us what was going on. I remember at one stage it said the PLA stationed in Beijing was in a defensive position and then it asked some questions such as “Who are they waiting for and why are they in a defensive position?” I immediately drew a conclusion that there was a rebelling PLA force coming to support us!! Until I double checked with my cousin I realized how stupid I was to draw that conclusion.Kai, Tianjin student at Tiananmen during the student protestshttp://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2011/06/04/june-fourth-1989-another-look/
Kai’s statements show how student feeling and media reports were manipulatd by the ‘voice of america’.
Or as Lloyd Lofthouse asks
Can anyone explain why the deaths of a few hundred Chinese in Communist China in 1989 are more important than the slaughter of 30,000 civilians in 1947 (in Taiwan) by an American ally?
From the Japan Times:
Recently the massacre believers have begun to tell us that while maybe the “massacre” did not occur in the square, it certainly did occur in the streets and alleys leading to the square. But here, too, the Embassy cables tell a very different story. Relevant details include:
• Beijing sent in unarmed troops in its bid to clear the square of remaining students as the demonstrations wound down. When those troops were mocked and blocked by protesting crowds, Beijing hurriedly decided to send in armed troops, whose vehicles were also blocked.
The vehicles were also fire-bombed with their crews incinerated inside. (Reuters has yet to release a photo of an incinerated soldier being strung up under an overhead bridge.)
A lurid BBC report at the time was one important source. Other reporters may then have felt compelled to chime in even though none of them, including the BBC, had actually been in the square.
Mathews traces much of the problem to a Hong Kong newspaper that immediately, after the 1989 disturbance, ran a long story under the name of an alleged student protester. He claimed he was at the square when troops arrived with machine guns to mow down students in the hundreds.
Distributed around the globe, the article was seen as final proof that the original BBC and other massacre reports were accurate. But the alleged author of that report was never located, and for good reason: The article was almost certainly planted — one of the many black information operations organized by British intelligence over the years.
Then there is this one from the International Business Times
Let’s go back to those photos of the burning buses. The popular view is that they were torched by angry protesters after the shooting began. In fact they were torched before. The evidence? Reports of charred corpses being strung up beneath overpasses (one photographed by Reuters remains unpublished), and photos of badly burned soldiers seeking shelter in nearby houses. Soldiers in that kind of situation tend to go out with guns blazing – just ask the good citizens of Fallujah, Iraq.
Finally, there is “tank man” – that iconic image that suggests extreme bravery in the front of armed aggression. It’s hard not to accept that image as what it has come to mean over the last twenty years – brave opposition against military aggression.
But hang on a minute – if the troops had really been firing at students, to stand in front of tanks like that would be nothing but suicidal. If the man was suicidal, why was he carrying shopping bags??
Wouldn’t it make more sense to consider that — with the proof now before us – the tanks had NOT been firing at students – the “shopping bag man” felt safe to approach the tanks and even engage in dialogue with the soldiers?
Someone with the unfortunate tag of “bill the butcher” has analysed this photo, and he raises the following points:
1) the soldiers were sealed inside the tanks. soldiers keen on shooting are not sealed inside. People trying to protect themselves from molotov cocktails might seal themselves inside tanks.
2) looking closely at the photo, the tanks have muzzles on their guns. The guns would not have had muzzles on if shooting had been intended.
3) Tank Man had shopping bags – simply meaning that the shops were open. In riot situations, shops are usually closed to avoid collateral damage.
4) Finally, and most importantly, the tanks kept moving to the side to try and AVOID hitting the man. If the tanks were actually ruthlessly running over students, why would they try and avoid one man?? It doesn’t make sense.
And there is this, from another source
As for Tankman, we now know from the cameraman himself that his widely-publicised photo was taken from his hotel window the day AFTER the riots, and the tanks were going away from, not into, the Square.
One iconic image can be used “as evidence” for mythologies of an event which did not occur as the mythologies present.
Looking closely at the photo, this iconic image may actually represent something else.
Wikileaks has proven that the Chinese Government version of events has actually more in common with the evidence.
Why is this still important now?
Because this iconic image and misrepresented versions of what went down in Tiananmen in 1989, global consensus has the Chinese government as callous murderers of their own people – and this misrepresentation is till paraded around today. (2014 saw media commentators discussing Tank Man… lets wait till June 2015 and see what happens…)
One must wonder, in whose interest is the misrepresentation of Tiananmen in 1989? Who benefits from this vision of the Chinese military, a vision which is at odds with all the evidence?
In whose interest is it to trot out these misrepresentations, year after year, 25 years later?
Further reading and source material:
Kai’s testimony here http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2011/06/04/june-fourth-1989-another-look/
eye witnesses and “pack journalism” http://tiananmenmyth.blogspot.com.au
analysing THAT photo http://subversify.com/2010/01/15/the-tiananmen-square-massacre-a-new-look/comment-page-1/