Comments:Twentieth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests passes in China

We should concentrate attention in your future and your performance, while not lingering in your dark history. Suppose that some one always talk with you about your uneasy memories, what will you feel? In that way, I think it is evil and inhumane for foreign medias to tease other people's scar.

the view for one Chinese graduate student


 * "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
 * -- The view of the poet and philosopher George Santayana

This sad event must not be forgotten. China's treatment of protests shows the flaw of its government, and its way of controlling the people. Okay if you want to stop the protest. But why kill? When there are so many other ways to stop the protests? The thinking was that killing is the most efficient way to dis-encourage other protests. Killing who? You're own citizens.


 * There was sadly simply no other way of stopping the protest. All negotiations failed to disperse the students and they started killing the soldiers first. The soldiers, who are about the same age as the students, have no anti-riot equipment but only live ammunition. For the soldiers it was a choice between to kill or to die. For the government it was to send the army or be overthrown. The students should have been able to predict the outcome and gone home earlier. What they did actually back-stepped political reforms in the country. -Funicode (talk) 03:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I find this version of the facts hard to believe. Students killing soldiers? -Alemaco (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is true, there are videos of it. I saw one where the students burned an armored vehicle stuck in their fence and killed its occupants. The soldiers did not fight back. -209.148.133.196 (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see the footage. Afaik, no soldiers died before the crackdown began. I know there were clashes between protesters and soldiers before June 4th, but no one died. About a dozen soldiers died on the night of crackdown at the hands of angry mobs though. --142.73.67.1 (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

June 4th, good thing gone bad
It's a very complicated issue. It is undeniable that it was a very sad event, but not unavoidable. The protestors initially had good will for starting it, but they soon got carried away. They didn't not have a clear idea about political and social overview of the Chinese sociality and government at the time and got over their heads and started to make their demand more and more unbearable for the Communist government and shout slogans calling for Deng to step down and dismantle the CPC, a move the Chinese government would not tolerate (which involves historal and cultural factors as China always stress collectivism and central power). A nation with that vast of population and in turn complicated social structures must take any reformation and change carefully and considerately, a hasty attempt could have dire ramifactions such as Mao's Great Leap Forward movement. The protestors (especially the student movement leaders) would not step back and try to reach some kind of agreement with the government, I believe out of fear for their own safety (government could come after them after the event's over) and so they made the others stayed with them to protect their own safety and prehaps achieve some kind of goal (gain fame or even political advantage) and thus dispersed risk for all of them but in the meantime further polarized the CPC. Should the students settled down after Zhao Ziyang came to the Square, he might able to stay in his position as the future leader for China and his liberal position could done what the protestors want better should the event didn't transpire the way it was. In my opinion, we should not simply judge either side easily; for the protestors it was good thing gone bad (they got good reason and good will to voice their concerns and grievances, but got over their heads and became sort of unreasonable), for the CPC it was to sacrifice their budding image of reformers and international relationship with the west to avoid losing central control over the nation and thus in their opinion maintaining social stability. I could only say that this event helped us to better understand the difficulties of social transition and hope to avoid any repetition of such event in the future.


 * This is not true. Students attempted to talk to the government. The leaders had a fruitless talk with Li Peng because government was unwilling to give in. Secondly, student leaders were divided. Some of them like Wang Dan wanted to retreat from Tiananmen Square, while some like Chai Ling wanted to stay. A vote was held to decide which approach the students should take, and they ended up staying. Thirdly, it was obvious that Zhao Ziyang already lost his ground before he visited students. Li Peng announced the martial law one day after the visit, and so the event escalated before students had time to respond to goodwill of Zhao Ziyang. --142.73.67.1 (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I am glad they were shot those miserable motherfuckers. The government has given them so much higher living standards better lives and finally a place in the world. How did the protesters even want to remotely end that. Granted china was not like what it is today in 1989 but I do not care I support the chinese government and its actions and don't give me the fucking human rights angle your government fucking kills people and protesters not just in cities but in whole nations,


 * "...and don't give me the fucking human rights angle your government fucking kills people and protesters..." You mistake me for someone who actually elected my Prime Minister. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry english are okay the only people i was reaching out to were Israelis and Americans sorry about doing that