Seems like the Ukrainian military is taking the fight to Russia, inside Russia. Using Ukrainian sympathizers inside Russia to attack Russian infrastructure with drones made in Ukraine. Brilliant!!
@PVW -- now you can complain that I'm repeating myself and ignore the fact that I'm responding to what I consider to be a misrepresentation of the facts.
Thanks for going back and looking. It's obvious that Paul doesn't respond when contrary facts are presented to him, he just ignores them. And after a few months, repeats the same arguments that ignore the contrary facs. "Lather, rinse, repeat".
I don't buy this line of crap that the West wanted war with Russia. Refusing to negotiate at gunpoint does not equal "wants war".
You missed the point that the negotiations were already taking place and had reached a tentative agreement "at gunpoint" but the West blocked them because they saw an opportunity, in the words of Defense Secretary Austin, to "weaken Russia".
You miss the point that not even Bennett (who you say you're relying on) says that's how it happened.
This only makes sense if you don't read further when Bennet says the negotiations ended because the West "blocked them" in order to "strike" Putin.
Earlier, when Bennet says "It's over" he's expressing his reaction to the horrific stories of Bucha, assuming that the West and Ukraine would likely use them as a pretext to break off negotiations.
You're making that up out of whole cloth. You're ascribing claims to Bennett that he did not make. Bennett isn't saying that he's "assuming that the West and Ukraine would likely use them as a pretext to break off negotiations.". He's acknowledging that Russian atrocities killed the deal that was being discussed. His response to Elon, around the same time that interview was being used to make the claim that US/UK killed the deal, points to that -
Yes, I'm stating my opinion that what Bennet meant when he said "It's over" was that he thought the West and Ukraine would use Bucha as a pretext to stop the negotiations. And in fact the negotiations weren't over until Boris Johnson went to Kyiv to tell Zelensky to end them. And if you look at the sequence in Bennet's interview, he doesn't say "Bucha blocked the negotiations" he says "the West blocked the negotiations because they wanted to strike Putin".
And besides, your argument that Russian atrocities "killed the deal" implies that can never be a deal, because of Bucha. Atrocities are always part of war and deals to end wars happen despite the atrocities.
In Bennet's tweet that you post, he opines on whether the deal -- which he discusses in the interview and which Hill and Fiona say was a "tentative" deal -- would have actually been finalized. And he further opines that he thought the potential deal "was desirable". This is irrelevant to what you are trying to obfuscate -- that a tenative deal was reached but that it was blocked by the West because they saw an opportunity to "strike" Putin. Correct me if I'm wrong, but have you ever acknowledged that Bennet said that the West "blocked" the deal?
I'm relying on Bennet's own description of what he meant.
This is like the scene in "Annie Hall" where Woody Allen brings out Marshall McCluhan from behind a sign, to tell the bloviating professor that he knows nothing about McCluhan's work.
Bennet explained what he meant. You can agree or disagree with his assessment, but you can't disagree with his view of what he means.
This is normally the place where @nohero jumps in to criticize a white suburban guy for telling black Africans how to think.
This is another version of "every accusation is a confession". Back when there was discussion of Venezuela, and the U.S. supporting the National Assembly against Maduro, there was discussion about the government there. Paul was defending the recognition of the "Constituent Assembly" that Maduro had convened to take power from the existing National Assembly.
Paul made the argument that "white supremacy" was behind the recognition of the National Assembly over the Constituent Assembly and Maduro. In support of that, he used two pictures, one of the members of each body, standing on the steps of the legislative building. Paul pushed the argument that the Maduro supporters were "darker", and the U.S. was supporting the "whiter" people, and used the pictures to support that claim.
At the time, I responded, "Take a closer look at your two pictures of the groups of people. Both photos were taken on the same set of stairs. In the one with the 'darker' people, the pillars are also darker, the back walls are also darker, and the gold of the crest on the back wall is also darker. It's almost as if the whole picture was reproduced so that the subjects looked darker than in the other one."
Paul's criticism of my statement, in response: "Denial that a group of elected officials are predominantly people of color vs another group that is predominantly white is such a white suburban American thing to do"
A few points:
(1) This is pure deflection using whataboutism. But you confirm my point by evading what @Jaytee said.
(2) With regard to my assertion that Maduro supporters tend to be darker than the (former) Guaido supporters, it's not controversial that Maduro's political base of Chavismo (the legacy of former president Chavez) was in general primarily from the poorer classes, while Guaido represented the rich and middle classes.
“And if you look at the upper socio-economic levels of the country,” Acosta-Alzuru said, “they tend to be whiter than on the lower socio-economic levels. That is something that is very apparent to everybody.”
(3) Finally, let's revisit your insistence that Guaido was the real president of Venezuela:
Estamos vivendo um momento histórico. Depois de 8 anos, o presidente @NicolasMaduro volta a visitar o Brasil e nós recuperamos o direito de fazer política de relações internacionais com a seriedade que sempre fizemos, sobretudo com os países que fazem fronteira com o Brasil.
There's a lot of "every accusation is a confession" all over that response.
Just to recap, Paul takes a swipe at me, saying "This is normally the place where @nohero jumps in to criticize a white suburban guy for telling black Africans how to think." Then, it turns out that Paul was the one who made the crack against me that a "white suburban guy" was imposing his own viewpoint on the "people of color".
Not only does Paul not even blink when the hypocrisy is revealed, but he doubles down by "supporting" his original crack against me with more of his ranting about Venezuela, which isn't even relevant to this thread.
He's doubling down on what I consider a personal attack, but I'm not going to "report" or otherwise suggest a "time out". That would be counter productive, because I'd expect him to whine and carry on about how he's being repressed because of his views. So let him tell lies all he wants, and he can be corrected again and again.
This is normally the place where @nohero jumps in to criticize a white suburban guy for telling black Africans how to think.
This is another version of "every accusation is a confession". Back when there was discussion of Venezuela, and the U.S. supporting the National Assembly against Maduro, there was discussion about the government there. Paul was defending the recognition of the "Constituent Assembly" that Maduro had convened to take power from the existing National Assembly.
Paul made the argument that "white supremacy" was behind the recognition of the National Assembly over the Constituent Assembly and Maduro. In support of that, he used two pictures, one of the members of each body, standing on the steps of the legislative building. Paul pushed the argument that the Maduro supporters were "darker", and the U.S. was supporting the "whiter" people, and used the pictures to support that claim.
At the time, I responded, "Take a closer look at your two pictures of the groups of people. Both photos were taken on the same set of stairs. In the one with the 'darker' people, the pillars are also darker, the back walls are also darker, and the gold of the crest on the back wall is also darker. It's almost as if the whole picture was reproduced so that the subjects looked darker than in the other one."
Paul's criticism of my statement, in response: "Denial that a group of elected officials are predominantly people of color vs another group that is predominantly white is such a white suburban American thing to do"
A few points:
(1) This is pure deflection using whataboutism. But you confirm my point by evading what @Jaytee said.
(2) With regard to my assertion that Maduro supporters tend to be darker than the (former) Guaido supporters, it's not controversial that Maduro's political base of Chavismo (the legacy of former president Chavez) was in general primarily from the poorer classes, while Guaido represented the rich and middle classes.
“And if you look at the upper socio-economic levels of the country,” Acosta-Alzuru said, “they tend to be whiter than on the lower socio-economic levels. That is something that is very apparent to everybody.”
(3) Finally, let's revisit your insistence that Guaido was the real president of Venezuela:
Estamos vivendo um momento histórico. Depois de 8 anos, o presidente @NicolasMaduro volta a visitar o Brasil e nós recuperamos o direito de fazer política de relações internacionais com a seriedade que sempre fizemos, sobretudo com os países que fazem fronteira com o Brasil.
There's a lot of "every accusation is a confession" all over that response.
Just to recap, Paul takes a swipe at me, saying "This is normally the place where @nohero jumps in to criticize a white suburban guy for telling black Africans how to think." Then, it turns out that Paul was the one who made the crack against me that a "white suburban guy" was imposing his own viewpoint on the "people of color".
Not only does Paul not even blink when the hypocrisy is revealed, but he doubles down by "supporting" his original crack against me with more of his ranting about Venezuela, which isn't even relevant to this thread.
He's doubling down on what I consider a personal attack, but I'm not going to "report" or otherwise suggest a "time out". That would be counter productive, because I'd expect him to whine and carry on about how he's being repressed because of his views. So let him tell lies all he wants, and he can be corrected again and again.
There's a lot of "every accusation is a confession" all over that response.
Just to recap, Paul takes a swipe at me, saying "This is normally the place where @nohero jumps in to criticize a white suburban guy for telling black Africans how to think." Then, it turns out that Paul was the one who made the crack against me that a "white suburban guy" was imposing his own viewpoint on the "people of color".
Not only does Paul not even blink when the hypocrisy is revealed, but he doubles down by "supporting" his original crack against me with more of his ranting about Venezuela, which isn't even relevant to this thread.
He's doubling down on what I consider a personal attack, but I'm not going to "report" or otherwise suggest a "time out". That would be counter productive, because I'd expect him to whine and carry on about how he's being repressed because of his views. So let him tell lies all he wants, and he can be corrected again and again.
Meanwhile, Putin is still getting great help from Tucker Carlson.
In which Tucker Carlson says that the first Jewish president of Ukraine is "sweaty and rat like, a persecutor of Christians, a friend of Blackrock." https://t.co/oqCcSvM0I2
That's a Nicholas Kristof piece. If I cited that article back to him, and argued that it proves there was no massacre in Beijing, he would probably call me a f*cking idiot, or worse.
There were killings, but there was no massacre or killings in Tinanmen Square. The students left peacefully at the urging of the soldiers. That's what Kristof wrote in 1989 and he doesn't contradict that in his 2019 piece.
Today's piece by Kristof (unlocked, so anyone can read) -
"I was appalled on the 34th anniversary of that citywide massacre a few days ago when apologists for the Chinese government insisted that it had never happened. Even worse, I discovered that one of the eyewitnesses they cited to buttress their denial was me.
"All this reflects the Chinese government’s effort to rewrite history, so it seems useful to push back and say what I actually saw that terrible night of June 3-4, 1989. ...
"Supporters of the Chinese government base their denials of any massacre in Beijing in part on that essay by me, suggesting that I reported that there was no massacre anywhere. It’s maddening to have my efforts to ensure an accurate historical record misused to promote Chinese government fabrications."
He doesn't call them "f*cking idiots", but he's writing for a family newspaper.
That's a Nicholas Kristof piece. If I cited that article back to him, and argued that it proves there was no massacre in Beijing, he would probably call me a f*cking idiot, or worse.
There were killings, but there was no massacre or killings in Tinanmen Square. The students left peacefully at the urging of the soldiers. That's what Kristof wrote in 1989 and he doesn't contradict that in his 2019 piece.
Today's piece by Kristof (unlocked, so anyone can read) -
"I was appalled on the 34th anniversary of that citywide massacre a few days ago when apologists for the Chinese government insisted that it had never happened. Even worse, I discovered that one of the eyewitnesses they cited to buttress their denial was me.
"All this reflects the Chinese government’s effort to rewrite history, so it seems useful to push back and say what I actually saw that terrible night of June 3-4, 1989. ...
"Supporters of the Chinese government base their denials of any massacre in Beijing in part on that essay by me, suggesting that I reported that there was no massacre anywhere. It’s maddening to have my efforts to ensure an accurate historical record misused to promote Chinese government fabrications."
He doesn't call them "f*cking idiots", but he's writing for a family newspaper.
This is where a member of the clique would normally jump in to remind us that this is not a thread about China. But -- as in this case -- the f̶r̶a̶t̶ clique boys don't call out their own.
Regarding whether who is the "f*cking idiot" for denying that Kristof said there was no massacre or killings in Tiananmen Square, here's what Kristof wrote in 1989 (my bold):
JUNE 3. Thousands of troops have infiltrated into the capital, and people are growing accustomed to them - even in the Tiananmen Square area. The demonstration itself has lost much of its impetus, with many students from outside the capital returning to their homes. Fewer than 10,000 - probably considerably fewer - are still living in the square.
During the early hours of this Saturday morning, thousands of soldiers are sent into Beijing from the east, probably to bolster the show of force in the capital and gradually restore order. At this hour, the streets are empty of civilians, and it seems likely the plan was for the troops to enter the city quietly, without attracting attention.
But shortly before midnight, three miles west of Tiananmen, a speeding police van had swerved out of control, killing three bicyclists. An angry crowd quickly gathered, and many of the suspicious people insisted the incident was intentional. Some also declared that since the van was racing toward Tiananmen Square, the police must be preparing to evict the demonstrators.
The news has raced around Beijing, and, for the first time in a week, people swarm out of their houses to occupy the streets. The angry, defiant crowds soon encounter the exhausted soldiers, who are just finishing their forced march into the city, confirming the public impression that the authorities are scheming to attack the students. The indignant citizens search all vehicles passing by on the roads, and beat up some of the soldiers.
The troops are unarmed, probably to insure safety during the trip; their gear and weapons are transported separately in buses taking another route. Under normal conditions, these buses would never have been stopped, but after the accident, they are halted and searched, and machine guns are found. The discovery further inflames the crowds, and angry citizens confiscate the weapons.
JUNE 4. News that troops have been beaten, and guns stolen, alarms the conservative officials now holding the reins of power. Though the capital has been growing steadily calmer during the last week, the leaders decide they have to act decisively. And so Deng and his colleagues order the Army to take control of the city, using whatever force is required.
What happens before dawn on this Sunday has been much written about, and much confused. Based on my observations in the streets, neither the official account nor many of the foreign versions are quite correct.
There is no massacre in Tiananmen Square, for example, although there is plenty of killing elsewhere. Troops frequently fire at crowds who are no threat to them, and at times aim directly at medical personnel and ambulances. Some of those who are shot have been threatening the troops - for while the students have generally urged nonviolence, many young workers carry firebombs or pipes, and they manage to kill more than a dozen soldiers or policemen. But many other civilians are casually slaughtered for no apparent reason.
An acquaintance of mine, the only son of a party member who has always believed in the Government, is riding his bicycle to work in northeast Beijing that morning when a detachment of soldiers sees him. They shoot him in the back, killing him. He becomes simply another data point in the tragedy of 20th-century China.
ARMED FORCE ENABLED Deng and his colleagues to regain control over the capital, and during the months since, the leadership has slowly been consolidating its authority and purging those who are judged to have failed the test. Zhao Ziyang was stripped of all his offices and has vanished into a walled villa at No. 6 Fuqiang Alley, where he is said to spend much of his time reading. Bao Tong remains in prison.
Yet the killings of early June did not resolve the power struggles, they intensified them. There still is no consensus in the leadership about how China should be managed politically or economically. The leaders continue to fight among themselves about what economic policies to endorse, and whom to promote or purge.
On the surface, a degree of normalcy is returning to China, and martial law has been relaxed in Beijing. But there remain deep and unresolved tensions that have only been exacerbated by the bloodshed. Many Chinese compare the present period to the jockeying for power at the end of the Maoist era in 1976, and they note that the Maoist political hierarchy and economic system collapsed only two years after Mao died. When Deng and his octagenarian colleagues follow Mao, the same thing may well happen.
At that time, when change finally comes, it is likely to be all the more rapid, all the more sweeping, for having been repressed in 1989. Many of my Communist friends used to believe in the system. Now they are no longer Communists but simply party members who believe neither in the party nor in Communism.
Zhao could well re-emerge - now 70, he is still four years younger than Deng was on his triumphal return to power in 1978 - but the change will not depend on him; for throughout the party and nation there is a deep longing for change, a deep sadness about what has happened. Today, many Chinese remember the words of the great writer Lu Xun early in this century: ''Lies written in ink cannot obscure a truth written in blood.''
Edited to add: I use the term "boys" because I'm not aware of any female members of the clique. Correct me if I'm wrong.
"I was appalled on the 34th anniversary of that citywide massacre a few days ago when apologists for the Chinese government insisted that it had never happened. Even worse, I discovered that one of the eyewitnesses they cited to buttress their denial was me.
"All this reflects the Chinese government’s effort to rewrite history, so it seems useful to push back and say what I actually saw that terrible night of June 3-4, 1989. ...
"Supporters of the Chinese government base their denials of any massacre in Beijing in part on that essay by me, suggesting that I reported that there was no massacre anywhere. It’s maddening to have my efforts to ensure an accurate historical record misused to promote Chinese government fabrications."
He doesn't call them "f*cking idiots", but he's writing for a family newspaper.
This is where a member of the clique would normally jump in to remind us that this is not a thread about China. But -- as in this case -- the f̶r̶a̶t̶ clique boys don't call out their own.
Regarding whether who is the "f*cking idiot" for denying that Kristof said there was no massacre or killings in Tiananmen Square, here's what Kristof wrote in 1989 (my bold):
The two bridges were targeted with U.S.-supplied M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems — or HIMARS launchers, which have a range of 50 miles — and were quickly rendered impassable.
“There were moments when we turned off their supply lines completely, and they still managed to build crossings,” (Ukrainian General-PS) Kovalchuk said. “They managed to replenish ammunition. … It was very difficult.”
Kovalchuk considered flooding the river. The Ukrainians, he said, even conducted a test strike with a HIMARS launcher on one of the floodgates at the Nova Kakhovka dam, making three holes in the metal to see if the Dnieper’s water could be raised enough to stymie Russian crossings but not flood nearby villages.
The test was a success, Kovalchuk said, but the step remained a last resort. He held off.
"I was appalled on the 34th anniversary of that citywide massacre a few days ago when apologists for the Chinese government insisted that it had never happened. Even worse, I discovered that one of the eyewitnesses they cited to buttress their denial was me.
"All this reflects the Chinese government’s effort to rewrite history, so it seems useful to push back and say what I actually saw that terrible night of June 3-4, 1989. ...
"Supporters of the Chinese government base their denials of any massacre in Beijing in part on that essay by me, suggesting that I reported that there was no massacre anywhere. It’s maddening to have my efforts to ensure an accurate historical record misused to promote Chinese government fabrications."
He doesn't call them "f*cking idiots", but he's writing for a family newspaper.
This is where a member of the clique would normally jump in to remind us that this is not a thread about China. But -- as in this case -- the f̶r̶a̶t̶ clique boys don't call out their own.
Regarding whether who is the "f*cking idiot" for denying that Kristof said there was no massacre or killings in Tiananmen Square, here's what Kristof wrote in 1989 (my bold):
I quoted it in this thread, because it was in this thread.
But I stand corrected. Mr. Kristof might call you a "f*cking idiot" for doing what he carefully explained was misusing what he wrote.
I don't think Nick would use abusive language if for some reason he thought it necessary to respond to someone who quoted him at length. He's not irrational.
Edited to add: The fact that the post was already in the thread doesn't negate what I said about the reason for absence of cliquish intervention.
I don't think Nick would use abusive language if for some reason he thought it necessary to respond to someone who quoted him at length. He's not irrational.
You are correct. He would know that it was understood, especially when the person just repeats the misrepresentation even after he carefully explained that was wrong in this morning's piece.
The two bridges were targeted with U.S.-supplied M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems — or HIMARS launchers, which have a range of 50 miles — and were quickly rendered impassable.
“There were moments when we turned off their supply lines completely, and they still managed to build crossings,” (Ukrainian General-PS) Kovalchuk said. “They managed to replenish ammunition. … It was very difficult.”
Kovalchuk considered flooding the river. The Ukrainians, he said, even conducted a test strike with a HIMARS launcher on one of the floodgates at the Nova Kakhovka dam, making three holes in the metal to see if the Dnieper’s water could be raised enough to stymie Russian crossings but not flood nearby villages.
The test was a success, Kovalchuk said, but the step remained a last resort. He held off.
Since (a) "not flood nearby villages" and (b) it's not a "last resort" for Ukraine, since it's hindering and not helping their current efforts, the answer would be "Why mention something irrelevant?"
Why, as soon as someone is in the minority with their views think those who disagree with them, are in a clubhouse pouring shots of Glenlivet 12 year old while laughing at them? A clique? Boys club? If you are posting stuff that’s ridiculous, that is propaganda, that are lies, you better be wearing underwear made of asbestos…
That's a Nicholas Kristof piece. If I cited that article back to him, and argued that it proves there was no massacre in Beijing, he would probably call me a f*cking idiot, or worse.
There were killings, but there was no massacre or killings in Tinanmen Square. The students left peacefully at the urging of the soldiers. That's what Kristof wrote in 1989 and he doesn't contradict that in his 2019 piece.
Today's piece by Kristof (unlocked, so anyone can read) -
"I was appalled on the 34th anniversary of that citywide massacre a few days ago when apologists for the Chinese government insisted that it had never happened. Even worse, I discovered that one of the eyewitnesses they cited to buttress their denial was me.
"All this reflects the Chinese government’s effort to rewrite history, so it seems useful to push back and say what I actually saw that terrible night of June 3-4, 1989. ...
"Supporters of the Chinese government base their denials of any massacre in Beijing in part on that essay by me, suggesting that I reported that there was no massacre anywhere. It’s maddening to have my efforts to ensure an accurate historical record misused to promote Chinese government fabrications."
He doesn't call them "f*cking idiots", but he's writing for a family newspaper.
This is where a member of the clique would normally jump in to remind us that this is not a thread about China. But -- as in this case -- the f̶r̶a̶t̶ clique boys don't call out their own.
Regarding whether who is the "f*cking idiot" for denying that Kristof said there was no massacre or killings in Tiananmen Square, here's what Kristof wrote in 1989 (my bold):
JUNE 3. Thousands of troops have infiltrated into the capital, and people are growing accustomed to them - even in the Tiananmen Square area. The demonstration itself has lost much of its impetus, with many students from outside the capital returning to their homes. Fewer than 10,000 - probably considerably fewer - are still living in the square.
During the early hours of this Saturday morning, thousands of soldiers are sent into Beijing from the east, probably to bolster the show of force in the capital and gradually restore order. At this hour, the streets are empty of civilians, and it seems likely the plan was for the troops to enter the city quietly, without attracting attention.
But shortly before midnight, three miles west of Tiananmen, a speeding police van had swerved out of control, killing three bicyclists. An angry crowd quickly gathered, and many of the suspicious people insisted the incident was intentional. Some also declared that since the van was racing toward Tiananmen Square, the police must be preparing to evict the demonstrators.
The news has raced around Beijing, and, for the first time in a week, people swarm out of their houses to occupy the streets. The angry, defiant crowds soon encounter the exhausted soldiers, who are just finishing their forced march into the city, confirming the public impression that the authorities are scheming to attack the students. The indignant citizens search all vehicles passing by on the roads, and beat up some of the soldiers.
The troops are unarmed, probably to insure safety during the trip; their gear and weapons are transported separately in buses taking another route. Under normal conditions, these buses would never have been stopped, but after the accident, they are halted and searched, and machine guns are found. The discovery further inflames the crowds, and angry citizens confiscate the weapons.
JUNE 4. News that troops have been beaten, and guns stolen, alarms the conservative officials now holding the reins of power. Though the capital has been growing steadily calmer during the last week, the leaders decide they have to act decisively. And so Deng and his colleagues order the Army to take control of the city, using whatever force is required.
What happens before dawn on this Sunday has been much written about, and much confused. Based on my observations in the streets, neither the official account nor many of the foreign versions are quite correct.
There is no massacre in Tiananmen Square, for example, although there is plenty of killing elsewhere. Troops frequently fire at crowds who are no threat to them, and at times aim directly at medical personnel and ambulances. Some of those who are shot have been threatening the troops - for while the students have generally urged nonviolence, many young workers carry firebombs or pipes, and they manage to kill more than a dozen soldiers or policemen. But many other civilians are casually slaughtered for no apparent reason.
An acquaintance of mine, the only son of a party member who has always believed in the Government, is riding his bicycle to work in northeast Beijing that morning when a detachment of soldiers sees him. They shoot him in the back, killing him. He becomes simply another data point in the tragedy of 20th-century China.
ARMED FORCE ENABLED Deng and his colleagues to regain control over the capital, and during the months since, the leadership has slowly been consolidating its authority and purging those who are judged to have failed the test. Zhao Ziyang was stripped of all his offices and has vanished into a walled villa at No. 6 Fuqiang Alley, where he is said to spend much of his time reading. Bao Tong remains in prison.
Yet the killings of early June did not resolve the power struggles, they intensified them. There still is no consensus in the leadership about how China should be managed politically or economically. The leaders continue to fight among themselves about what economic policies to endorse, and whom to promote or purge.
On the surface, a degree of normalcy is returning to China, and martial law has been relaxed in Beijing. But there remain deep and unresolved tensions that have only been exacerbated by the bloodshed. Many Chinese compare the present period to the jockeying for power at the end of the Maoist era in 1976, and they note that the Maoist political hierarchy and economic system collapsed only two years after Mao died. When Deng and his octagenarian colleagues follow Mao, the same thing may well happen.
At that time, when change finally comes, it is likely to be all the more rapid, all the more sweeping, for having been repressed in 1989. Many of my Communist friends used to believe in the system. Now they are no longer Communists but simply party members who believe neither in the party nor in Communism.
Zhao could well re-emerge - now 70, he is still four years younger than Deng was on his triumphal return to power in 1978 - but the change will not depend on him; for throughout the party and nation there is a deep longing for change, a deep sadness about what has happened. Today, many Chinese remember the words of the great writer Lu Xun early in this century: ''Lies written in ink cannot obscure a truth written in blood.''
Click to Read More
JUNE 3. Thousands of troops have infiltrated into the capital, and people are growing accustomed to them - even in the Tiananmen Square area. The demonstration itself has lost much of its impetus, with many students from outside the capital returning to their homes. Fewer than 10,000 - probably considerably fewer - are still living in the square.
During the early hours of this Saturday morning, thousands of soldiers are sent into Beijing from the east, probably to bolster the show of force in the capital and gradually restore order. At this hour, the streets are empty of civilians, and it seems likely the plan was for the troops to enter the city quietly, without attracting attention.
But shortly before midnight, three miles west of Tiananmen, a speeding police van had swerved out of control, killing three bicyclists. An angry crowd quickly gathered, and many of the suspicious people insisted the incident was intentional. Some also declared that since the van was racing toward Tiananmen Square, the police must be preparing to evict the demonstrators.
The news has raced around Beijing, and, for the first time in a week, people swarm out of their houses to occupy the streets. The angry, defiant crowds soon encounter the exhausted soldiers, who are just finishing their forced march into the city, confirming the public impression that the authorities are scheming to attack the students. The indignant citizens search all vehicles passing by on the roads, and beat up some of the soldiers.
The troops are unarmed, probably to insure safety during the trip; their gear and weapons are transported separately in buses taking another route. Under normal conditions, these buses would never have been stopped, but after the accident, they are halted and searched, and machine guns are found. The discovery further inflames the crowds, and angry citizens confiscate the weapons.
JUNE 4. News that troops have been beaten, and guns stolen, alarms the conservative officials now holding the reins of power. Though the capital has been growing steadily calmer during the last week, the leaders decide they have to act decisively. And so Deng and his colleagues order the Army to take control of the city, using whatever force is required.
What happens before dawn on this Sunday has been much written about, and much confused. Based on my observations in the streets, neither the official account nor many of the foreign versions are quite correct.
There is no massacre in Tiananmen Square, for example, although there is plenty of killing elsewhere. Troops frequently fire at crowds who are no threat to them, and at times aim directly at medical personnel and ambulances. Some of those who are shot have been threatening the troops - for while the students have generally urged nonviolence, many young workers carry firebombs or pipes, and they manage to kill more than a dozen soldiers or policemen. But many other civilians are casually slaughtered for no apparent reason.
An acquaintance of mine, the only son of a party member who has always believed in the Government, is riding his bicycle to work in northeast Beijing that morning when a detachment of soldiers sees him. They shoot him in the back, killing him. He becomes simply another data point in the tragedy of 20th-century China.
ARMED FORCE ENABLED Deng and his colleagues to regain control over the capital, and during the months since, the leadership has slowly been consolidating its authority and purging those who are judged to have failed the test. Zhao Ziyang was stripped of all his offices and has vanished into a walled villa at No. 6 Fuqiang Alley, where he is said to spend much of his time reading. Bao Tong remains in prison.
Yet the killings of early June did not resolve the power struggles, they intensified them. There still is no consensus in the leadership about how China should be managed politically or economically. The leaders continue to fight among themselves about what economic policies to endorse, and whom to promote or purge.
On the surface, a degree of normalcy is returning to China, and martial law has been relaxed in Beijing. But there remain deep and unresolved tensions that have only been exacerbated by the bloodshed. Many Chinese compare the present period to the jockeying for power at the end of the Maoist era in 1976, and they note that the Maoist political hierarchy and economic system collapsed only two years after Mao died. When Deng and his octagenarian colleagues follow Mao, the same thing may well happen.
At that time, when change finally comes, it is likely to be all the more rapid, all the more sweeping, for having been repressed in 1989. Many of my Communist friends used to believe in the system. Now they are no longer Communists but simply party members who believe neither in the party nor in Communism.
Zhao could well re-emerge - now 70, he is still four years younger than Deng was on his triumphal return to power in 1978 - but the change will not depend on him; for throughout the party and nation there is a deep longing for change, a deep sadness about what has happened. Today, many Chinese remember the words of the great writer Lu Xun early in this century: ''Lies written in ink cannot obscure a truth written in blood.''
Edited to add: I use the term "boys" because I'm not aware of any female members of the clique. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm not a moderator or admin -- any power I have over shaping discussion is simply however persuasive I can be. So it's gratifying when a general discussion rule I try to follow gets picked up by others as well. Thanks Paul, for picking up and echoing my recurring request to keep threads more or less on topic. I trust this this means that we can also look forward to fewer egregious whatabouts from your direction going forward.
The only piece of advice I'd offer is to drop the aggrieved tone. Nohero is a reasonable person, and I'm sure a gentle reminder that a china thread exists would have been sufficient. Perhaps you might have even taken the extra step and gone to that thread yourself and responded to him there, to get the ball rolling in that direction. Casting yourself as some kind of excluded martyr isn't helpful or necessary.
The only piece of advice I'd offer is to drop the aggrieved tone. Nohero is a reasonable person, and I'm sure a gentle reminder that a china thread exists would have been sufficient. Perhaps you might have even taken the extra step and gone to that thread yourself and responded to him there, to get the ball rolling in that direction. Casting yourself as some kind of excluded martyr isn't helpful or necessary.
My post was a quote of an earlier exchange on this thread, and isn’t about China so much as it’s about how sources are sometimes misused, to support claims not actually made by the source’s author.
That's a Nicholas Kristof piece. If I cited that article back to him, and argued that it proves there was no massacre in Beijing, he would probably call me a f*cking idiot, or worse.
There were killings, but there was no massacre or killings in Tinanmen Square. The students left peacefully at the urging of the soldiers. That's what Kristof wrote in 1989 and he doesn't contradict that in his 2019 piece.
Today's piece by Kristof (unlocked, so anyone can read) -
"I was appalled on the 34th anniversary of that citywide massacre a few days ago when apologists for the Chinese government insisted that it had never happened. Even worse, I discovered that one of the eyewitnesses they cited to buttress their denial was me.
"All this reflects the Chinese government’s effort to rewrite history, so it seems useful to push back and say what I actually saw that terrible night of June 3-4, 1989. ...
"Supporters of the Chinese government base their denials of any massacre in Beijing in part on that essay by me, suggesting that I reported that there was no massacre anywhere. It’s maddening to have my efforts to ensure an accurate historical record misused to promote Chinese government fabrications."
He doesn't call them "f*cking idiots", but he's writing for a family newspaper.
This is where a member of the clique would normally jump in to remind us that this is not a thread about China. But -- as in this case -- the f̶r̶a̶t̶ clique boys don't call out their own.
Regarding whether who is the "f*cking idiot" for denying that Kristof said there was no massacre or killings in Tiananmen Square, here's what Kristof wrote in 1989 (my bold):
JUNE 3. Thousands of troops have infiltrated into the capital, and people are growing accustomed to them - even in the Tiananmen Square area. The demonstration itself has lost much of its impetus, with many students from outside the capital returning to their homes. Fewer than 10,000 - probably considerably fewer - are still living in the square.
During the early hours of this Saturday morning, thousands of soldiers are sent into Beijing from the east, probably to bolster the show of force in the capital and gradually restore order. At this hour, the streets are empty of civilians, and it seems likely the plan was for the troops to enter the city quietly, without attracting attention.
But shortly before midnight, three miles west of Tiananmen, a speeding police van had swerved out of control, killing three bicyclists. An angry crowd quickly gathered, and many of the suspicious people insisted the incident was intentional. Some also declared that since the van was racing toward Tiananmen Square, the police must be preparing to evict the demonstrators.
The news has raced around Beijing, and, for the first time in a week, people swarm out of their houses to occupy the streets. The angry, defiant crowds soon encounter the exhausted soldiers, who are just finishing their forced march into the city, confirming the public impression that the authorities are scheming to attack the students. The indignant citizens search all vehicles passing by on the roads, and beat up some of the soldiers.
The troops are unarmed, probably to insure safety during the trip; their gear and weapons are transported separately in buses taking another route. Under normal conditions, these buses would never have been stopped, but after the accident, they are halted and searched, and machine guns are found. The discovery further inflames the crowds, and angry citizens confiscate the weapons.
JUNE 4. News that troops have been beaten, and guns stolen, alarms the conservative officials now holding the reins of power. Though the capital has been growing steadily calmer during the last week, the leaders decide they have to act decisively. And so Deng and his colleagues order the Army to take control of the city, using whatever force is required.
What happens before dawn on this Sunday has been much written about, and much confused. Based on my observations in the streets, neither the official account nor many of the foreign versions are quite correct.
There is no massacre in Tiananmen Square, for example, although there is plenty of killing elsewhere. Troops frequently fire at crowds who are no threat to them, and at times aim directly at medical personnel and ambulances. Some of those who are shot have been threatening the troops - for while the students have generally urged nonviolence, many young workers carry firebombs or pipes, and they manage to kill more than a dozen soldiers or policemen. But many other civilians are casually slaughtered for no apparent reason.
An acquaintance of mine, the only son of a party member who has always believed in the Government, is riding his bicycle to work in northeast Beijing that morning when a detachment of soldiers sees him. They shoot him in the back, killing him. He becomes simply another data point in the tragedy of 20th-century China.
ARMED FORCE ENABLED Deng and his colleagues to regain control over the capital, and during the months since, the leadership has slowly been consolidating its authority and purging those who are judged to have failed the test. Zhao Ziyang was stripped of all his offices and has vanished into a walled villa at No. 6 Fuqiang Alley, where he is said to spend much of his time reading. Bao Tong remains in prison.
Yet the killings of early June did not resolve the power struggles, they intensified them. There still is no consensus in the leadership about how China should be managed politically or economically. The leaders continue to fight among themselves about what economic policies to endorse, and whom to promote or purge.
On the surface, a degree of normalcy is returning to China, and martial law has been relaxed in Beijing. But there remain deep and unresolved tensions that have only been exacerbated by the bloodshed. Many Chinese compare the present period to the jockeying for power at the end of the Maoist era in 1976, and they note that the Maoist political hierarchy and economic system collapsed only two years after Mao died. When Deng and his octagenarian colleagues follow Mao, the same thing may well happen.
At that time, when change finally comes, it is likely to be all the more rapid, all the more sweeping, for having been repressed in 1989. Many of my Communist friends used to believe in the system. Now they are no longer Communists but simply party members who believe neither in the party nor in Communism.
Zhao could well re-emerge - now 70, he is still four years younger than Deng was on his triumphal return to power in 1978 - but the change will not depend on him; for throughout the party and nation there is a deep longing for change, a deep sadness about what has happened. Today, many Chinese remember the words of the great writer Lu Xun early in this century: ''Lies written in ink cannot obscure a truth written in blood.''
Click to Read More
JUNE 3. Thousands of troops have infiltrated into the capital, and people are growing accustomed to them - even in the Tiananmen Square area. The demonstration itself has lost much of its impetus, with many students from outside the capital returning to their homes. Fewer than 10,000 - probably considerably fewer - are still living in the square.
During the early hours of this Saturday morning, thousands of soldiers are sent into Beijing from the east, probably to bolster the show of force in the capital and gradually restore order. At this hour, the streets are empty of civilians, and it seems likely the plan was for the troops to enter the city quietly, without attracting attention.
But shortly before midnight, three miles west of Tiananmen, a speeding police van had swerved out of control, killing three bicyclists. An angry crowd quickly gathered, and many of the suspicious people insisted the incident was intentional. Some also declared that since the van was racing toward Tiananmen Square, the police must be preparing to evict the demonstrators.
The news has raced around Beijing, and, for the first time in a week, people swarm out of their houses to occupy the streets. The angry, defiant crowds soon encounter the exhausted soldiers, who are just finishing their forced march into the city, confirming the public impression that the authorities are scheming to attack the students. The indignant citizens search all vehicles passing by on the roads, and beat up some of the soldiers.
The troops are unarmed, probably to insure safety during the trip; their gear and weapons are transported separately in buses taking another route. Under normal conditions, these buses would never have been stopped, but after the accident, they are halted and searched, and machine guns are found. The discovery further inflames the crowds, and angry citizens confiscate the weapons.
JUNE 4. News that troops have been beaten, and guns stolen, alarms the conservative officials now holding the reins of power. Though the capital has been growing steadily calmer during the last week, the leaders decide they have to act decisively. And so Deng and his colleagues order the Army to take control of the city, using whatever force is required.
What happens before dawn on this Sunday has been much written about, and much confused. Based on my observations in the streets, neither the official account nor many of the foreign versions are quite correct.
There is no massacre in Tiananmen Square, for example, although there is plenty of killing elsewhere. Troops frequently fire at crowds who are no threat to them, and at times aim directly at medical personnel and ambulances. Some of those who are shot have been threatening the troops - for while the students have generally urged nonviolence, many young workers carry firebombs or pipes, and they manage to kill more than a dozen soldiers or policemen. But many other civilians are casually slaughtered for no apparent reason.
An acquaintance of mine, the only son of a party member who has always believed in the Government, is riding his bicycle to work in northeast Beijing that morning when a detachment of soldiers sees him. They shoot him in the back, killing him. He becomes simply another data point in the tragedy of 20th-century China.
ARMED FORCE ENABLED Deng and his colleagues to regain control over the capital, and during the months since, the leadership has slowly been consolidating its authority and purging those who are judged to have failed the test. Zhao Ziyang was stripped of all his offices and has vanished into a walled villa at No. 6 Fuqiang Alley, where he is said to spend much of his time reading. Bao Tong remains in prison.
Yet the killings of early June did not resolve the power struggles, they intensified them. There still is no consensus in the leadership about how China should be managed politically or economically. The leaders continue to fight among themselves about what economic policies to endorse, and whom to promote or purge.
On the surface, a degree of normalcy is returning to China, and martial law has been relaxed in Beijing. But there remain deep and unresolved tensions that have only been exacerbated by the bloodshed. Many Chinese compare the present period to the jockeying for power at the end of the Maoist era in 1976, and they note that the Maoist political hierarchy and economic system collapsed only two years after Mao died. When Deng and his octagenarian colleagues follow Mao, the same thing may well happen.
At that time, when change finally comes, it is likely to be all the more rapid, all the more sweeping, for having been repressed in 1989. Many of my Communist friends used to believe in the system. Now they are no longer Communists but simply party members who believe neither in the party nor in Communism.
Zhao could well re-emerge - now 70, he is still four years younger than Deng was on his triumphal return to power in 1978 - but the change will not depend on him; for throughout the party and nation there is a deep longing for change, a deep sadness about what has happened. Today, many Chinese remember the words of the great writer Lu Xun early in this century: ''Lies written in ink cannot obscure a truth written in blood.''
Edited to add: I use the term "boys" because I'm not aware of any female members of the clique. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm not a moderator or admin -- any power I have over shaping discussion is simply however persuasive I can be. So it's gratifying when a general discussion rule I try to follow gets picked up by others as well. Thanks Paul, for picking up and echoing my recurring request to keep threads more or less on topic. I trust this this means that we can also look forward to fewer egregious whatabouts from your direction going forward.
The only piece of advice I'd offer is to drop the aggrieved tone. Nohero is a reasonable person, and I'm sure a gentle reminder that a china thread exists would have been sufficient. Perhaps you might have even taken the extra step and gone to that thread yourself and responded to him there, to get the ball rolling in that direction. Casting yourself as some kind of excluded martyr isn't helpful or necessary.
Fact check false. Nohero is not a reasonable person.
This is where a member of the clique would normally jump in to remind us that this is not a thread about China. But -- as in this case -- the f̶r̶a̶t̶ clique boys don't call out their own.
Casting yourself as some kind of excluded martyr isn't helpful or necessary.
In the 50 minutes between nohero’s comment and our unrequited hero’s reply, the boys were busy pruning the clubhouse ivy and regret their mistimed inattention to this thread.
That's a Nicholas Kristof piece. If I cited that article back to him, and argued that it proves there was no massacre in Beijing, he would probably call me a f*cking idiot, or worse.
There were killings, but there was no massacre or killings in Tinanmen Square. The students left peacefully at the urging of the soldiers. That's what Kristof wrote in 1989 and he doesn't contradict that in his 2019 piece.
Today's piece by Kristof (unlocked, so anyone can read) -
"I was appalled on the 34th anniversary of that citywide massacre a few days ago when apologists for the Chinese government insisted that it had never happened. Even worse, I discovered that one of the eyewitnesses they cited to buttress their denial was me.
"All this reflects the Chinese government’s effort to rewrite history, so it seems useful to push back and say what I actually saw that terrible night of June 3-4, 1989. ...
"Supporters of the Chinese government base their denials of any massacre in Beijing in part on that essay by me, suggesting that I reported that there was no massacre anywhere. It’s maddening to have my efforts to ensure an accurate historical record misused to promote Chinese government fabrications."
He doesn't call them "f*cking idiots", but he's writing for a family newspaper.
This is where a member of the clique would normally jump in to remind us that this is not a thread about China. But -- as in this case -- the f̶r̶a̶t̶ clique boys don't call out their own.
Regarding whether who is the "f*cking idiot" for denying that Kristof said there was no massacre or killings in Tiananmen Square, here's what Kristof wrote in 1989 (my bold):
JUNE 3. Thousands of troops have infiltrated into the capital, and people are growing accustomed to them - even in the Tiananmen Square area. The demonstration itself has lost much of its impetus, with many students from outside the capital returning to their homes. Fewer than 10,000 - probably considerably fewer - are still living in the square.
During the early hours of this Saturday morning, thousands of soldiers are sent into Beijing from the east, probably to bolster the show of force in the capital and gradually restore order. At this hour, the streets are empty of civilians, and it seems likely the plan was for the troops to enter the city quietly, without attracting attention.
But shortly before midnight, three miles west of Tiananmen, a speeding police van had swerved out of control, killing three bicyclists. An angry crowd quickly gathered, and many of the suspicious people insisted the incident was intentional. Some also declared that since the van was racing toward Tiananmen Square, the police must be preparing to evict the demonstrators.
The news has raced around Beijing, and, for the first time in a week, people swarm out of their houses to occupy the streets. The angry, defiant crowds soon encounter the exhausted soldiers, who are just finishing their forced march into the city, confirming the public impression that the authorities are scheming to attack the students. The indignant citizens search all vehicles passing by on the roads, and beat up some of the soldiers.
The troops are unarmed, probably to insure safety during the trip; their gear and weapons are transported separately in buses taking another route. Under normal conditions, these buses would never have been stopped, but after the accident, they are halted and searched, and machine guns are found. The discovery further inflames the crowds, and angry citizens confiscate the weapons.
JUNE 4. News that troops have been beaten, and guns stolen, alarms the conservative officials now holding the reins of power. Though the capital has been growing steadily calmer during the last week, the leaders decide they have to act decisively. And so Deng and his colleagues order the Army to take control of the city, using whatever force is required.
What happens before dawn on this Sunday has been much written about, and much confused. Based on my observations in the streets, neither the official account nor many of the foreign versions are quite correct.
There is no massacre in Tiananmen Square, for example, although there is plenty of killing elsewhere. Troops frequently fire at crowds who are no threat to them, and at times aim directly at medical personnel and ambulances. Some of those who are shot have been threatening the troops - for while the students have generally urged nonviolence, many young workers carry firebombs or pipes, and they manage to kill more than a dozen soldiers or policemen. But many other civilians are casually slaughtered for no apparent reason.
An acquaintance of mine, the only son of a party member who has always believed in the Government, is riding his bicycle to work in northeast Beijing that morning when a detachment of soldiers sees him. They shoot him in the back, killing him. He becomes simply another data point in the tragedy of 20th-century China.
ARMED FORCE ENABLED Deng and his colleagues to regain control over the capital, and during the months since, the leadership has slowly been consolidating its authority and purging those who are judged to have failed the test. Zhao Ziyang was stripped of all his offices and has vanished into a walled villa at No. 6 Fuqiang Alley, where he is said to spend much of his time reading. Bao Tong remains in prison.
Yet the killings of early June did not resolve the power struggles, they intensified them. There still is no consensus in the leadership about how China should be managed politically or economically. The leaders continue to fight among themselves about what economic policies to endorse, and whom to promote or purge.
On the surface, a degree of normalcy is returning to China, and martial law has been relaxed in Beijing. But there remain deep and unresolved tensions that have only been exacerbated by the bloodshed. Many Chinese compare the present period to the jockeying for power at the end of the Maoist era in 1976, and they note that the Maoist political hierarchy and economic system collapsed only two years after Mao died. When Deng and his octagenarian colleagues follow Mao, the same thing may well happen.
At that time, when change finally comes, it is likely to be all the more rapid, all the more sweeping, for having been repressed in 1989. Many of my Communist friends used to believe in the system. Now they are no longer Communists but simply party members who believe neither in the party nor in Communism.
Zhao could well re-emerge - now 70, he is still four years younger than Deng was on his triumphal return to power in 1978 - but the change will not depend on him; for throughout the party and nation there is a deep longing for change, a deep sadness about what has happened. Today, many Chinese remember the words of the great writer Lu Xun early in this century: ''Lies written in ink cannot obscure a truth written in blood.''
Click to Read More
JUNE 3. Thousands of troops have infiltrated into the capital, and people are growing accustomed to them - even in the Tiananmen Square area. The demonstration itself has lost much of its impetus, with many students from outside the capital returning to their homes. Fewer than 10,000 - probably considerably fewer - are still living in the square.
During the early hours of this Saturday morning, thousands of soldiers are sent into Beijing from the east, probably to bolster the show of force in the capital and gradually restore order. At this hour, the streets are empty of civilians, and it seems likely the plan was for the troops to enter the city quietly, without attracting attention.
But shortly before midnight, three miles west of Tiananmen, a speeding police van had swerved out of control, killing three bicyclists. An angry crowd quickly gathered, and many of the suspicious people insisted the incident was intentional. Some also declared that since the van was racing toward Tiananmen Square, the police must be preparing to evict the demonstrators.
The news has raced around Beijing, and, for the first time in a week, people swarm out of their houses to occupy the streets. The angry, defiant crowds soon encounter the exhausted soldiers, who are just finishing their forced march into the city, confirming the public impression that the authorities are scheming to attack the students. The indignant citizens search all vehicles passing by on the roads, and beat up some of the soldiers.
The troops are unarmed, probably to insure safety during the trip; their gear and weapons are transported separately in buses taking another route. Under normal conditions, these buses would never have been stopped, but after the accident, they are halted and searched, and machine guns are found. The discovery further inflames the crowds, and angry citizens confiscate the weapons.
JUNE 4. News that troops have been beaten, and guns stolen, alarms the conservative officials now holding the reins of power. Though the capital has been growing steadily calmer during the last week, the leaders decide they have to act decisively. And so Deng and his colleagues order the Army to take control of the city, using whatever force is required.
What happens before dawn on this Sunday has been much written about, and much confused. Based on my observations in the streets, neither the official account nor many of the foreign versions are quite correct.
There is no massacre in Tiananmen Square, for example, although there is plenty of killing elsewhere. Troops frequently fire at crowds who are no threat to them, and at times aim directly at medical personnel and ambulances. Some of those who are shot have been threatening the troops - for while the students have generally urged nonviolence, many young workers carry firebombs or pipes, and they manage to kill more than a dozen soldiers or policemen. But many other civilians are casually slaughtered for no apparent reason.
An acquaintance of mine, the only son of a party member who has always believed in the Government, is riding his bicycle to work in northeast Beijing that morning when a detachment of soldiers sees him. They shoot him in the back, killing him. He becomes simply another data point in the tragedy of 20th-century China.
ARMED FORCE ENABLED Deng and his colleagues to regain control over the capital, and during the months since, the leadership has slowly been consolidating its authority and purging those who are judged to have failed the test. Zhao Ziyang was stripped of all his offices and has vanished into a walled villa at No. 6 Fuqiang Alley, where he is said to spend much of his time reading. Bao Tong remains in prison.
Yet the killings of early June did not resolve the power struggles, they intensified them. There still is no consensus in the leadership about how China should be managed politically or economically. The leaders continue to fight among themselves about what economic policies to endorse, and whom to promote or purge.
On the surface, a degree of normalcy is returning to China, and martial law has been relaxed in Beijing. But there remain deep and unresolved tensions that have only been exacerbated by the bloodshed. Many Chinese compare the present period to the jockeying for power at the end of the Maoist era in 1976, and they note that the Maoist political hierarchy and economic system collapsed only two years after Mao died. When Deng and his octagenarian colleagues follow Mao, the same thing may well happen.
At that time, when change finally comes, it is likely to be all the more rapid, all the more sweeping, for having been repressed in 1989. Many of my Communist friends used to believe in the system. Now they are no longer Communists but simply party members who believe neither in the party nor in Communism.
Zhao could well re-emerge - now 70, he is still four years younger than Deng was on his triumphal return to power in 1978 - but the change will not depend on him; for throughout the party and nation there is a deep longing for change, a deep sadness about what has happened. Today, many Chinese remember the words of the great writer Lu Xun early in this century: ''Lies written in ink cannot obscure a truth written in blood.''
Edited to add: I use the term "boys" because I'm not aware of any female members of the clique. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm not a moderator or admin -- any power I have over shaping discussion is simply however persuasive I can be. So it's gratifying when a general discussion rule I try to follow gets picked up by others as well. Thanks Paul, for picking up and echoing my recurring request to keep threads more or less on topic. I trust this this means that we can also look forward to fewer egregious whatabouts from your direction going forward.
The only piece of advice I'd offer is to drop the aggrieved tone. Nohero is a reasonable person, and I'm sure a gentle reminder that a china thread exists would have been sufficient. Perhaps you might have even taken the extra step and gone to that thread yourself and responded to him there, to get the ball rolling in that direction. Casting yourself as some kind of excluded martyr isn't helpful or necessary.
This is where a member of the clique would normally jump in to remind us that this is not a thread about China. But -- as in this case -- the f̶r̶a̶t̶ clique boys don't call out their own.
Casting yourself as some kind of excluded martyr isn't helpful or necessary.
In the 50 minutes between nohero’s comment and our unrequited hero’s reply, the boys were busy pruning the clubhouse ivy and regret their mistimed inattention to this thread.
Someone blew up the dam. I'm concerned about safety at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
(yes we all have our biases as to who we suspect, including me, but I'll refrain from indulging those suspicions until there's more concrete info).