Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on April 10, 2006, 05:57:03 am
-
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/10042006/140/ken-red-faced-tianamen-gaffe.html
[q]
"In the same way that Trafalgar Square has had an interesting history, not always a peaceful one, there's a very clear parallel.
"We've had some interesting riots in Trafalgar Square - I mean, only 20 years ago, the poll tax riots, and flames licking up."
It was pointed out that no one had been killed in the 1990 poll tax riots and that the police had not used tanks.
[/q]
-
It is the latest in a series of controversies involving Mr Livingstone.
He has been criticised for comparing a Jewish reporter with a concentration camp guard, and telling two half-Iraqi Jewish businessmen to "go back to Iran".
ROFL, sure that would of went down well.
Seems like a chap for attracting unwanted attention no?
-
ROFL, sure that would of went down well.
Seems like a chap for attracting unwanted attention no?
Well yes, he is a twat now you mention it.
-
ROFL, sure that would of went down well.
Seems like a chap for attracting unwanted attention no?
Well yes, he is a twat now you mention it.
Quite so.
-
I like yahoo's url for the article.
And I don't see what's so controversial. Every country has blood on its hands, that's nothing unusual. The reason Tianamen Square gets the recognition that it does is because it's bad PR for China. Three thousand people could die in Africa tommorow, and there would probably be one column about it on page 18 of the local paper.
-
The reason Tianamen Square gets the recognition that it does is because it's bad PR for China.
That, and it's the scene of one of the greatest displays of the unconquerable human spirit balls in history...
(http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/1712/tianasquare8wy.jpg)
Tankman ftw. :D
-
I like yahoo's url for the article.
And I don't see what's so controversial. Every country has blood on its hands, that's nothing unusual. The reason Tianamen Square gets the recognition that it does is because it's bad PR for China. Three thousand people could die in Africa tommorow, and there would probably be one column about it on page 18 of the local paper.
On telly? Killed by the government?
I agree that we're very much a self-centric culture, where a disaster gets greater coverage if it kills 1 of our citizens than 100 foreigners, but even so it's somewhat rare for a developed nation to respond to popular protests via a massacre. The point that Livingstone seems to have completely missed is that the reason for the notoriety of Tianemen is not that there was a riot or protests, but that the reaction to those protests was to send in the army and allow them to fire upon unarmed protestors. I think we'd see that reported if it was captured in another country than China, like (for example) Uzbekhistan or Zimbabwe.
-
My point was that people die all the time. Tanks or malaria or a car accident, dead is dead. It is abnormal for a developed country to use such naked force against dissidents, but keep in mind that China was and is a one-party police state. And if you want to talk about government violence, I think I can safely say that several thousand people died in the Iraq cluster**** over the past few months. I'm not saying that Tainamen Square is insignificant, but it's not the Holocaust either. I mean, the Prague Spring happened only twenty years before Tianamen, and no one today holds that in any special regard. Or, as you said, the Andijan protest.
-
My point was that people die all the time. Tanks or malaria or a car accident, dead is dead. It is abnormal for a developed country to use such naked force against dissidents, but keep in mind that China was and is a one-party police state. And if you want to talk about government violence, I think I can safely say that several thousand people died in the Iraq cluster**** over the past few months. I'm not saying that Tainamen Square is insignificant, but it's not the Holocaust either. I mean, the Prague Spring happened only twenty years before Tianamen, and no one today holds that in any special regard. Or, as you said, the Andijan protest.
but we're not talking about Tianemen in a historical context. We're talking about comparing it to riots in Trafalgar Square, when - as the news article said - no-one was killed by the government sending in tanks at Trafalgar square.
-
Defending Tianemen Square is unthinkable. It is undefendable. Trying to play it down is almost as bad.
Personally, I am not sure if he actually believes any of this or not. It just sounds like attention whoring.