To deny the events that unfolded at Tiananmen Square is like denying that humans have been to the moon. It’s an unfounded, in fact, disprovable conspiracy theory.
So prove it to us then. All you’re doing right now is scolding us for being insane conspiracy theorists. I’ve never seen any evidence that anything happened at tiananmen square. Reports from people who were actually there all say that there was no massacre
The US has a very long history of lying about its enemies. There are plenty of declassified CIA docs that talk about what lies to tell the media. Why is this one different?
Edit: also, see pen names. Isn’t it a little hypocritical to call us conspiracy theorists when you come to the conclusion that the book was lies written by China or North Korea because you can’t find any information about the author?
I can’t prove it to you, I just use my skills at googling “A B Abrams” to conclude that this is untrustworthy. I also can’t prove that the moon landing happened or that matter is made of atoms, doesn’t mean they are false.
See my edit. But here’s the thing. We have video of the moon landing and rocks from the actual moon. That’s solid evidence. We have plenty of evidence of the atom existing, because half our tech wouldn’t work if they didn’t exist.
Where is the evidence of a massacre at tiananmen square? Please read the links I gave you.
Edit: please remember, you said that this was an easily disprovable conspiracy theory.
To add to WhatWouldKarlDo’s posts, which provided credible counter-evidence (A CBS reporter on location, and a Latin American diplomat’s leaked eyewitness account), I want to further emphasise that using a search engine to assess credibility and provide ethos isn’t a strong argument. If I search your username, and if you search mine, neither of us will show up as a real person and both our histories will show we reply to political topics. Should we therefore conclude we’re both just writing propaganda, and further assume that makes it false?
We’re writing opinions or analyses, and hopefully, substantiating them with evidence. And surely the book is doing the same.
So prove it to us then. All you’re doing right now is scolding us for being insane conspiracy theorists. I’ve never seen any evidence that anything happened at tiananmen square. Reports from people who were actually there all say that there was no massacre
The US has a very long history of lying about its enemies. There are plenty of declassified CIA docs that talk about what lies to tell the media. Why is this one different?
Edit: also, see pen names. Isn’t it a little hypocritical to call us conspiracy theorists when you come to the conclusion that the book was lies written by China or North Korea because you can’t find any information about the author?
Radlibs and seeing irony are the bitterest of foes.
I can’t prove it to you, I just use my skills at googling “A B Abrams” to conclude that this is untrustworthy. I also can’t prove that the moon landing happened or that matter is made of atoms, doesn’t mean they are false.
See my edit. But here’s the thing. We have video of the moon landing and rocks from the actual moon. That’s solid evidence. We have plenty of evidence of the atom existing, because half our tech wouldn’t work if they didn’t exist.
Where is the evidence of a massacre at tiananmen square? Please read the links I gave you.
Edit: please remember, you said that this was an easily disprovable conspiracy theory.
lmao okay
To add to WhatWouldKarlDo’s posts, which provided credible counter-evidence (A CBS reporter on location, and a Latin American diplomat’s leaked eyewitness account), I want to further emphasise that using a search engine to assess credibility and provide ethos isn’t a strong argument. If I search your username, and if you search mine, neither of us will show up as a real person and both our histories will show we reply to political topics. Should we therefore conclude we’re both just writing propaganda, and further assume that makes it false?
We’re writing opinions or analyses, and hopefully, substantiating them with evidence. And surely the book is doing the same.
deleted by creator