My question was very simple from the beginning. I was asking if the
protesters got killed in 64 TAM incident? I have never asked TAM or
TAM Sq. It's YOU mentioning TAM Sq to tone down the massacre by
saying no one died in TAM Sq.!!!
And frankly, how do you know no one died in TAM Sq? The truth of 64
TAM incident has been sealed by PRC government.
On Dec 1, 10:52 am, "ltl...@
hotmail.com"
hotmail.com> wrote:> 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?
>
> ...
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
