On Dec 1, 10:27 am, "abianc...@
my-deja.com"
my-deja.com>
wrote:> BS! Have I said TAM? I said 64 TAM incident!!! It's YOU say TAM to
> twist!!!
What is you question again?
This is getting too complication because you many issues are
discussed.
Why don't you open a new thread and I will try to answer your
question.
>
> On Dec 1, 10:19 am, "ltl...@
hotmail.com"
hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> On Dec 1, 3:02 am, "abianc...@
my-deja.com"
my-deja.com>
>> wrote:>
>>> Also, the truth of 64 TAM incident has been sealed by PRC government
>>> just like the truth of 228 incident was sealed by KMT government for
>>> 40 years. You came from Taiwan, you know what I am talking about.
>>> You CCP defenders want to defend CCP, fine, but you guys should tell
>>> the truth, no twist, no lie, no BS, ok!
>
>> If you don't agree, you need to point out what you don't agree with.
>> Ranting will not advance any discussion. So far, Charles had given
>> you
>> straigth answers as far as I can tell.
>
>> As I had pointed out, if by TAM Sqaure, one means the square itself,
>> then the claim is about right. If one chooses to talk about the whole
>> incident,
>> of course, people had been killed. PLA had killed the protesters and
>> PLA
>> soldiers were killed by the protestors.
>
>>> On Dec 1, 2:34 am, CharlesLiu
hotmail.com> wrote:>
>>>> On Nov 30, 11:23 pm, "abianc...@
my-deja.com"
my-deja.com>
>>>> wrote:>
>>>>> LT Lee, you said you dont trust China Times, Taiwan newspaper on PRC
>>>>> news, then how come you trusted Orville Schell, a non-Chinese on 64
>>>>> TAM incident?
>
>>>> Because what Orville Schell said is backed up by other TAM
>>>> retrospectives?
>
>>>> Like this one by Columbia Univ. School of Journalism?
>
>
>>>> "as far as can be determined from the available evidence, no one died
>>>> that night in Tiananmen Square."
>
>>>> Also, the Frontline segment "The Tank Man" presented the Chinese
>>>> government's official casualty figure of 250 dead. This figure is in-
>>>> line with our NSA estimate:
>
>
>>>>> You contradicted yourself. Now, tell me if the PLA
>>>>> killed protesters in 64 TAM incident? Yes or No? No BS, no twist but
>>>>> straight answer, please!
>
>>>>> On Nov 30, 7:53 pm, "ltl...@
hotmail.com"
hotmail.com> wrote:>
>>>>>> On Nov 30, 7:44 pm, "abianc...@
my-deja.com"
my-deja.com>
>>>>>> wrote:>
>>>>>>> Tell me, did the protests get killed by the PLA in 64 TAM incident or
>>>>>>> not??? Yes or no?
>
>>>>>> I had quoted Orville Schell. I see no contraditctions.
>>>>>> The claim "No one dies in Tiananman Square" is believable if narrowly
>>>>>> interpreted.
>>>>>> Of course, people had died during the incident.
>
>>>>>>> On Nov 30, 7:40 pm, "ltl...@
hotmail.com"
hotmail.com> wrote:>
>>>>>>>> On Nov 30, 6:54 pm, "abianc...@
my-deja.com"
my-deja.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:>
>>>>>>>>> I said former PRC Defense Minister claimed no one got killed in 64 TAM
>>>>>>>>> incident and you can twist something else that amazed me. You are
>>>>>>>>> incredible!!!
>
>>>>>>>> No The claim was "No one die in Tiananman Square."
>>>>>>>> Please note that Orville Schill wrote the paragraph I quoted as a
>>>>>>>> response to the claim. He distinguished between causalty in the
>>>>>>>> Square itself and causalty during the process of clearing the
>>>>>>>> Square. Please read his paragraph again.
>
>>>>>>>>> I dont trust anyone, US officials or PRC officials, I use my own
>>>>>>>>> judgement. In this KH incident, "late apply" was just an excuse
>>>>>>>>> because "early apply" also got rejected at the same time last week.
>>>>>>>>> And even PRC military official, political analyst all said political
>>>>>>>>> issue was the real reason and one of them even told state-run
>>>>>>>>> newspaper, People's Daily's sister newspaper. You are the only one
>>>>>>>>> trusted PRC spokesman Liu's statement and Liu even hinted the real
>>>>>>>>> reason in press conference but you chose to ignore that.
>
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 30, 4:06 pm, "ltl...@
hotmail.com"
hotmail.com> wrote:>
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 30, 1:55 pm, "abianc...@
my-deja.com"
my-deja.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:>
>>>>>>>>>>> Chinatimes reported what AsiaWeek (Hong Kong) said in its article. In
>>>>>>>>>>> the article, PRC political analyst and miltary official all said
>>>>>>>>>>> political issues were the reason for KH's HK visit denial, that's
>>>>>>>>>>> their judgement and you are the only one still insists "Timeline" was
>>>>>>>>>>> the reason.
>
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry. The issue what decision had been made by the Foreign Ministry.
>>>>>>>>>> We are not discussion public opinion. And as I had explained, their
>>>>>>>>>> opinion
>>>>>>>>>> makes sense, but making sense is not the issue. The issue what
>>>>>>>>>> actually had
>>>>>>>>>> happnening. Did the U.S. side applied for permission? Was the port
>>>>>>>>>> visit
>>>>>>>>>> approved and then cancelled? Yes. We need the timeline to answer the
>>>>>>>>>> questions.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> And other US batterships applied for New Year's HK visit in October
>>>>>>>>>>> was also denied last week together with KH's visit denial. Tell us is
>>>>>>>>>>> that "timeline" issue too???
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hey, former PRC Defense Minister said no one died in 64 TAM incident,
>>>>>>>>>>> do you believe that too?
>
>>>>>>>>>> It is fine that you don't trust PRC officials. I can answer your
>>>>>>>>>> quesiton.. First of
>>>>>>>>>> all, I don't have first hand information. And I have to rely on
>>>>>>>>>> reporters and writers.
>
>>>>>>>>>> I had posted the following excerpt from Orville Schell's MANDATE OF
>>>>>>>>>> HEAVEN.
>>>>>>>>>> You can read it from the following link if you wish. Two points:
>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. Orville Schells had given a hour by hour, blow by blow desciption
>>>>>>>>>> on what had
>>>>>>>>>> happned in Tiananman square, i.e. the square itself. He did not
>>>>>>>>>> describe any causalty.
>>>>>>>>>> No shooting of students nor tank running over students.
>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. Referring to the various eyewitness account on causalties, Schell
>>>>>>>>>> reported,
>
>>>>>>>>>> "After sifting through all available accounts, it seems safe to say
>>>>>>>>>> that while
>>>>>>>>>> some causalties were sustained during the withdrawal, there were
>>>>>>>>>> probably not
>>>>>>>>>> many. This is not to say, however, that there was no causalties
>>>>>>>>>> sustained
>>>>>>>>>> during the overall process of "clearing the Square..."
>
>>>>>>>>>> My answer to your question:
>>>>>>>>>> If the former Defence Minister meant that no one died in the Tiananman
>>>>>>>>>> Square,
>>>>>>>>>> (I think this is what he had said) he could be right. Of course,
>>>>>>>>>> people died during
>>>>>>>>>> the overall process of clearing the Square.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>> Now let me ask you this.
>>>>>>>>>> What make you trust U.S. officials? Because they had told the truth,
>>>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>>>> but the truth about Saddam Hussien was involved in 9/11? Because they
>>>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>>> told the truth about Iraq acquiring yelloe cake from Niger? Because
>>>>>>>>>> they had
>>>>>>>>>> told the truth about incontrovertible evidece of WMD in Iraq?
>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 30, 1:44 pm, "ltl...@
hotmail.com"
hotmail.com> wrote:>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 30, 1:05 pm, "abianc...@
my-deja.com"
my-deja.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you really believed "timeline" was the only reason for KH visit
>>>>>>>>>>>>> denial. Then read the following:
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No disrespect. But I don't think Chinatimes provides the best and most
>>>>>>>>>>>> accurate
>>>>>>>>>>>> coverage on mainland. I will read Chinatimes for Taiwan news.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AsiaWeek article said that PRC military official, poltical analyst etc
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all said that recent Tibet and Taiwan issues (ie, Dalai Lama visit and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> arm sales to Taiwan) were the reason for KH visit denial!!! And those
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people also PRC rarely issued visit denial but only happened when
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there's political issues.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are those PRC military official and political analyst making the
>>>>>>>>>>>> decision on
>>>>>>>>>>>> whether to premit port vist. If not, what they think is irrelevant.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bascially, what make sense and what acutally had happened could be
>>>>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>> different things. America behaved like China antagonist in many
>>>>>>>>>>>> issues, it
>>>>>>>>>>>> makes sense for China to treat America as one. No port visit is then
>>>>>>>>>>>> logical.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But is it what had happened?
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we need the American timeline. Without it, all the talks on last
>>>>>>>>>>>> minute
>>>>>>>>>>>> cancellation, reversal, retaliation and etc are premature.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey, former PRC Defense Minister said no one died in 64 TAM incient,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you also believe that, right?
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 30, 12:48 pm, "ltl...@
hotmail.com"
hotmail.com> wrote:>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 30, 12:09 pm, demoris...@
aol.com wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 29,
>
> ...
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
