溫哥華老友記討論區 - Powered by Discuz! Board

標題: 6.4. 西班牙攝製隊拍到天安門學生和平散去果條片係 [打印本頁]

作者: daimo 時間: 2009-5-26 23:46 標題: 6.4. 西班牙攝製隊拍到天安門學生和平散去果條片係

本帖最後由 daimo 於 2009-5-27 00:48 編輯

這是一個很簡單的是非題.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=- ... eature=channel_page

勞煩看完全片再作答. 其它甚麽民主正義, 中共去死之討論敬請移玉步.

至於天安門有多大, 是否大到一邊有數千人被殺, 一邊有人可以唱歌和平散去... I don't know.

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2009-5-27 00:08

剛剛上網check 過, 原來天安門廣場都幾大架~
南北長880米, 東西寬500米架! 之話大約係有350個標準泳池咁大~

作者: ricrick 時間: 2009-5-27 00:55

片是經過剪接，不是事實之全部，很多被剪去，而且剪接得非常差，用剪接來扭曲事實卻是鐵一般事於實
一開頭過個官話解放軍傷5000、學生死傷23就知on 9

作者: CWong 時間: 2009-5-27 02:11

"一開頭過個官話解放軍傷5000、學生死傷23就知on 9"

作者: somewhereintime 時間: 2009-5-27 06:09

"一開頭過個官話解放軍傷5000、學生死傷23就知on 9"
CWong 發表於 2009-5-27 02:11

I doubt any formal trained military troop would be that wimp,
and the spokespersons' announcements contradict each other:
The day after June 4, 1989, they said the troop did not fire a single bullet(Great lie)
and "No Casaulty Reported"

作者: soli 時間: 2009-5-27 07:00

軍警傷亡正是因為他們嚴守"打不還手﹐ 罵不還口“ 的命令。

"The day after June 4, 1989, they said the troop did not fire a single bullet(Great lie)
and "No Casaulty Reported"
他是說在天安門廣場裡面。

人類畢竟是一種愛先入為主既動物﹐能反思的只有一小部份
所以話﹐ 支聯會同港英政府響洗腦呢方面係做得唔錯~

作者: soli 時間: 2009-5-27 07:04

本帖最後由 soli 於 2009-5-27 08:08 編輯

講到剪接﹐ 看看當年無線新聞的剪接先叫厲害。
[youtube]7i6k8Kv1AEo[/youtube]

西班牙攝影既軍隊清場片段﹐ 1994年ATV播過一次﹐ 然後就被禁播﹐ 引發ATV新聞部六君子辭職事件。

用返支聯會既話﹐ 如果唔係身有屎﹐ 洗乜要閃閃縮縮?

作者: habitrailspace 時間: 2009-5-27 07:04

按 0 7 9

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2009-5-27 07:12

好可怕。。。。
點解人可以咁樣？？
可以將八九民運否定？？
可以將六四事件合理化？？
國家主席都唔敢講六四係天安門冇死過人冇開過鎗，
係理直氣壯就大大聲同人講啦，
洗鬼刻意淡化咩。

作者: soli 時間: 2009-5-27 07:50

2# mcjohnjohn
麥莊莊我諗你將天安門同天安門廣場混淆左.

作者: sheep 時間: 2009-5-27 08:10

候德建說用謊言去打擊謊言係站不住腳的
每個人都在講大話?

作者: daimo 時間: 2009-5-27 08:58

3# ricrick

The youtube video is edited by some 3rd party. I should have linked the ORIGINAL ATV clip.

let me see if i could find it.

作者: somewhereintime 時間: 2009-5-27 09:58

軍警傷亡正是因為他們嚴守"打不還手﹐ 罵不還口“ 的命令。

"The day after June 4, 1989, they said the troop did not fire a single bullet(Great lie)
and "No Casaulty Reported"
他是說在天安門廣場裡面。

...
soli 發表於 2009-5-27 07:00

I was on business trip in HK during the 3 weeks, I got all my info from HK medias, not from HK Gov. I did not even participate the rally in May, but joined the protest in Vancouver after June 4, 1989

作者: soli 時間: 2009-5-27 11:29

I was on business trip in HK during the 3 weeks, I got all my info from HK medias, not from HK Gov. I did not even participate the rally in May, but joined the protest in Vancouver after June 4, 19 ...
somewhereintime 發表於 2009-5-27 10:58

請問ATV 新聞部六君子集體辭職應如何解釋呢?

作者: somewhereintime 時間: 2009-5-27 12:38

14# soli
I don't know much, I do not live in Hong Kong; I did not follow
that particular case.
I speak as an Oversea Chinese  who does not buy the CCP
propaganda to cover up truth at Tienanmen Square.
What did Wen Jia Bao say about the incident other that
" it has long been concluded by the party" ?
Why they  never dare to speak up, just trying to fade out instead?
I think I've read and research more on CCP  than you, dated back in 60's

作者: daimo 時間: 2009-5-27 12:47

請問ATV 新聞部六君子集體辭職應如何解釋呢?
soli 發表於 2009-5-27 12:29

if ATV 新聞部六君子 thought that 西班牙攝製隊拍到天安門學生和平散去果條片 was fake then they shouldn't have 集體辭職 when ATV decided not to show it.

作者: somewhereintime 時間: 2009-5-27 13:02

16# daimo
Do you have the original clip? this one is so phony

作者: daimo 時間: 2009-5-27 13:08

17# somewhereintime

i saw the complete program from ATV in youtube. I'll post it when I'm home.

it was a LOT more professional.

作者: sheep 時間: 2009-5-27 13:36

請問ATV 新聞部六君子集體辭職應如何解釋呢?
soli 發表於 2009-5-27 12:29

傻仔新聞部六君子集體辭職
係因為第二0的理由
唔關出街0的片事

作者: daimo 時間: 2009-5-27 13:48

http://www31.discuss.com.hk/viewthread.php?tid=9493605

陳一諤、亞視六君子與侯德建

以下是在香港大學論壇被刪的貼子，理由是與港大無關。既然寫了出來，就貼在這里吧！

--
截至昨日，陳一諤僅差28票就可以被罷免。也因公投結果，陳一諤表示，今後不會再在公開場合表達個人立場。

1994年，亞洲電視購買了西班牙的六四現場新聞片段，並製做了一個六四特輯。亞視管理層一度禁止新聞部播放這個特輯，引發六位資深新聞工作者集體請辭，人稱亞視六君子事件。

曾創作《酒乾倘賣無》、《龍的傳人》而紅極一時的台灣人侯德建離開台灣，去到北京參與天安門的靜坐絕食。在電影《天安門》中他說：“很多人說，廣場上有兩千人被打死，或者幾百人被打死；在廣場上有坦克碾軋學生撤退的人群，等等。”“我必須強調，這些事情，我沒有看見。那麼我不知道別人是在哪里看見的，我是六點半還在廣場上，我一點都沒看見。”結果他被千夫所指，幾乎每個人都認為他被人洗了腦。最終台灣及香港都無法容身，去了新西蘭，開始研究易經，並自此絕口不提六四。

難道真相就無法說出來？難道民主就是這樣的嗎？

巨龍巨龍你擦亮眼，巨龍巨龍你擦亮眼。港大的同學們，請你們用自己的眼睛，去看看六四時天安間廣場究竟發生了甚麼事情。

亞視時事追擊 ─ 歷史的空白片段3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oteSZOk87uA&feature=related

(i can't confirm if the link works from work)

作者: daimo 時間: 2009-5-27 17:12

本帖最後由 daimo 於 2009-5-27 18:16 編輯

17# somewhereintime

The whole show. 3 clips.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9ABnSjaOQM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVttDc2qz-8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oteSZOk87uA&feature=related

It works.

作者: soli 時間: 2009-5-27 21:39

傻仔新聞部六君子集體辭職
係因為第二0的理由
唔關出街0的片事
sheep 發表於 2009-5-27 14:36

令人失望。。順口開河﹐呢D係咩水準呀~

1994年亞視六君子事件轟動一時
[youtube]5Ea5mmdW53k[/youtube]

作者: ricrick 時間: 2009-5-28 01:56

[youtube]HTmceCnhOTc[/youtube]

作者: daimo 時間: 2009-5-28 02:29

23# ricrick

I suppose by posing your link you imply that ATV & and the Spanish video was fake.

What's your argument?

作者: ricrick 時間: 2009-5-28 10:57

係西班牙的影片裡，在關燈之後的兩個鐘又是全無畫面，只有軍隊進入後的畫面，之前或當中發生什麼無人知
在關燈前的叫學生清場廣播明顯是後期加上，鏡頭從高處拍下即不是廣場中西班牙的片，可見很多都是切切埋埋的剪接片短, ATV五年後運用想像力，在這所謂"空白"的地方，自行編寫歷史，當然是為了收視

為什麼你們始終放眼在共產黨有沒有在這"空白位"有沒有"屠城"？是不是殺得不夠"多"就=無錯=理所當然？？
無論點都好，學生所做的是我所敬佩的，他們所做的都有義意，有道理，有作為！我永遠都會支持！
共產黨真不該！！！共產黨的走狗不該啦你！！！

作者: ricrick 時間: 2009-5-28 11:17

http://www.64memo.com/flash/
左上角專題照片>死傷照片 (照片令人不安，不喜勿進 18+)

作者: soli 時間: 2009-5-28 11:29

本帖最後由 soli 於 2009-5-28 12:32 編輯

25# ricrick
無用啦~
而加證據確鑿﹐當年聲稱見到天安門屠城既記者﹐ 都唔改口都唔得。
現在改口話係“ 粗暴對待學生”窩~
又認坦克碌死人係靠估~
(咩記者黎架﹐ 用靠估黎造新聞)

呢條片應該係支聯會D不該錄既﹐ 應該無老屈啦~
[youtube]wVxi2Ed1BB8[/youtube]

作者: somewhereintime 時間: 2009-5-28 11:50

I give up arguing with the dogs of CCP, I believe that history will give a fair verdict,
the heroes and martyrs of Tienanmen will not die in vain

作者: ricrick 時間: 2009-5-28 12:40

soli我想問你搞甘耐，你想表達D咩？
係共產黨護國有功，定學生生按白做，做瑤生事，所以底死？
你話共產黨無屠殺，請問屠殺要死多少人先叫屠殺，有無一個數字給我？
都係果句，是不是殺得不夠"多"就=無錯=理所當然？？
如果你吾明白背後的義意，你吾同意民主自由，再同你講都浪費氣力
不停argue產黨有無殺人，捉人字蚤都真係多餘

作者: soli 時間: 2009-5-28 13:27

上一版大毛轉貼既文章﹐ 大概就係我想表達既野

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2009-5-28 13:44

Honestly, anything can't be trusted nowadays due to too much digital computer animations, truth is always difficult to be revealed. Even those so called "witnesses", their statements were differently made in different period of time, and also not sure whether they're the truth or not. Unless you were there in person, what we keep seeing can't be trust 100%.

作者: chunsh 時間: 2009-5-28 14:46

I give up arguing with the dogs of CCP, I believe that history will give a fair verdict,
the heroes and martyrs of Tienanmen will not die in vain
somewhereintime 發表於 2009-5-28 12:50

watch out your words when u call somebody XXX dog
yes, I saw the pictures about the corpse of the students and yes the government shouldnt use guns and tanks to the students
but what if those crowd of students really did something brutal to the cops or soldiers?

作者: tofu 時間: 2009-5-28 14:47

thanks for those one believes "共產黨無屠殺". you made me to have a serious deep thought about 6/4. probably i saw you before, are you the one who hang a 'mao' pic in your car, and believe 'mao' will bless you?
but no matter what, i believe we both wish chinese can enjoy peaceful living till the end of the world.

作者: somewhereintime 時間: 2009-5-28 15:39

32# chunsh
The natural duty of a soldier is to protect their people from invader,
but not crushing them with tanks.
There are only 4000-5000 students at Tienanmen square, the army
linking arms together could crush them without weapon.
I forgot to mention my family history, My father's brother was aCCP
involved in civil war and executed by KMT in 1940, I have a certificate
of Revolutionary Martyr's family issued by CCP.
My mother's brother-in-law was also a CCP, participated in the liberation
of Hainan Island, I was told the military story how brave the People's Army
were since I was a child. I admired PLA for the Sino-Japanese war, the Civil
war, Sino-Soviet , Korean War, and the Batter of LanShan in 1981; however,
the 6.4 incident made me change my POV against the PLA

作者: peter236 時間: 2009-5-28 16:02

Depending on the particular situation, the soldiers need to protect ordinary citizens from other rioting citizens, like those in Paris.

作者: chunsh 時間: 2009-5-28 16:05

32# chunsh
The natural duty of a soldier is to protect their people from invader,
but not crushing them with tanks.
There are only 4000-5000 students at Tienanmen square, the army
linking arms toget ...
somewhereintime 發表於 2009-5-28 16:39

too bad, I dont think those students are totally without weapons(maybe a chair, a metal/wood stick, etc)
also, even if they only use fists and kicks, 1 soldier has to have the ability to fight against at least 10 students

students have parents, so do the soldiers. 6.4 is a loss-loss case. Each side has fault and problem

作者: tofu 時間: 2009-5-28 16:49

蔣捷連六四被擊斃時只有 17 歲，媽媽丁子霖 20 年來在家中偷偷悼念。去年秋天，公安破門闖進他們家盤查，父親蔣培坤因激動中風致半身不遂，生活種種全然忘掉，卻沒有忘了其他難屬的心願；在康復過程中、公安的監視下，竭力完成紀錄片《天安門母親之路》文本，記下悲傷的木樨地，為所有永遠都回不了廣場的年輕靈魂，留下紀錄。
天安門母親製作了《天安門母親之路》 DVD 及《廿年生死兩茫茫》書本，紀念六四 20 周年。 DVD 由六四死難者家屬丁子霖及張先玲等口述 20 年來的抗爭，書本則收錄了各親屬的心路歷程，揭露了中共打壓他們的暴行。
anyone got a dvd copy?

作者: salad_bread 時間: 2009-5-28 19:12

from CK, 27th Jun 2006, 14:06 PM
http://h9902485.mysinablog.com/i ... mp;articleId=195249

不經不覺間﹐1989年的六四事件已經發生了十七年﹐而香港的支聯會仍一如既往的進行悼念活動﹐繼續要求「平反六四」﹐六四事件的悼念活動並沒有因為香港回歸而受到影響﹐亦有不少人認為此乃是香港言論自由的指標。十七年過去了﹐一些人仍然堅持六四事件是一場愛國民住運動﹐認為當時國家不應該進行武力清場﹐批評戒嚴部隊對手無寸鐵的群眾使用暴力﹐甚至指斥為「屠殺」﹐因此國家需要為六四事件平反。本文的撰寫目的﹐乃是旨在重新思考整件六四事件的各個問題﹐以此指出部份人在「平反六四」問題上﹐有可能存在的雙重標準。雖然文的內容必定惹起爭議﹐不過作為一個負責任的歷史學人﹐絕對應該思考這場運動為何最終釀成流血衝突﹐而這場流血衝突是否能夠避免。

何謂平反﹖
首先﹐我們需要理解何謂平反。現在一些人說平反﹐尤其是支聯會說的平反﹐不是談一個概念﹐更不是甚麼形而上學的概念。平反一件歷史事件﹐可謂社會主義國家的獨有現象﹐因為執政共產黨相信歷史唯物主義﹐並會解釋和探討每一件歷史事件爆發的發展規律﹐所以他們會將歷史事件定性﹐也會將一些參與某些事件的人進行定性。假如這種歷史定性出現錯誤﹐就會平反。資本主義國家甚少會為反思自己的歷史錯誤﹐甚至為自己所犯下的歷史錯誤進行道歉。例如﹕英國不會為自己過去二百多年來的侵略殖民行為道歉﹐美國也不會為當年派遣八國聯軍侵略中國進行反思。當然亦有例外﹐例如近期加拿大為自己歧視華籍移民﹐抽取華籍民工人頭稅一事道歉﹐並且作出賠償﹐不過這種由政府反思歷史錯誤﹐以及進行定性的行為實屬非常罕見。所以﹐這種歷史事件的平反﹐基本上是社會主義國家特有現象。

那麼「平反六四」的定義是甚麼﹖就是中央政府將六四事件重新定性﹐由「反革命暴亂」變成「愛國民主運動」。「平反六四」不是含糊的概念﹐是清晰的政治訴求。這種「重新定性」完完全全是一個政治行為﹐甚至可能需要通過一份<全國人民代表大會關於一九八九年春夏之交政治風波的若干問題的決議>的官方歷史事件定性文件﹐才算作所謂的「正式平反」。因此﹐要國家對六四事件進行「平反」﹐是一件非常重大的政治行為﹐不是隨隨便便出一份文件﹐然後和稀泥的叫國家主席說一番話就叫「平反」。

「平反六四」背後亦有一套政治邏輯﹐就是因為六四是「愛國民主運動」﹐不是「暴亂」﹐所以宣佈戒嚴的決定是錯的﹐武力清場的決定是錯的﹐而武力清場的本質就是「鎮壓」﹐一些人更用上「屠殺」一字。

換言之﹐平反六四是要求政府將一件他們認為正確的決定和做法﹐變成認錯。

至於那些「三七開」﹑「八二開」的歷史評價﹐如果真的出現平反﹐當然會出現。不過首要條件是﹐首先是六四事件的「愛國民主」成份要過半﹐才有平反的必要。如果「愛國民主」成份不過半﹐那就沒有平反的問題。

何謂愛國﹖
既然我們要評價六四事件是否一場「愛國民主運動」﹐那麼我們先要弄清楚何謂愛國﹐而這場運動中所談的民主﹐又是甚麼。

那麼﹐我們就要先談愛國是甚麼﹖我們現在談的現代愛國主義﹐需要以一個主權獨立國家作為對象﹐而這個對象通常以自己所屬的國籍作為標準。換言之﹐本人是中華人民共和國國民﹐談到愛國時就應以愛中華人民共和國作為標準。如果愛國沒有一個清晰的對象﹐那就等於將愛國主義﹐與民族主義或中國傳統的家國觀念混為一談。

愛國可以是一個政治概念﹐不過要將理念化為行動﹐而理念與行動一致﹐這才算是一種愛國行為。一個公民最簡單的愛國行為﹐就是履行公民責任﹐而奉公守法就是履行公民責任的最基本方法。如果一個人公然違反國家法律﹑莫視國家憲法﹐或者一個蓄意瞞稅逃稅﹐連最基本的公民責任也履行不了﹐就似乎沒有資格說自己愛國。

說到這兒﹐道理已顯而易見了。如果一場群眾運動中﹐有人公然違反國家法律﹑莫視國家憲法﹐連最基本的公民責任也履行不了﹐我們似乎也不能將此場運動稱為愛國的群眾運動。

民主在哪﹖
現在我們談談何謂民主﹐整場八九天安門運動中﹐當時的「學運領袖」皆不是以民主程序產生﹐而他們在整場運動中﹐又提出了甚麼的民主訴求﹖對於中國的社會主義民主建設﹐又提出了甚麼實質性建議﹖假如當時幾十個未經民主程序產生的所謂「學運領袖」﹐在未經廣泛諮詢民意的情況下﹐要求國家領導人下臺﹐又或者是在場一群群眾在遊行中提出要求國家領導人辭職的口號﹐就可憑一己之願凌駕於全國十多億人的意願﹐凌駕於由民選程序產生的全國人民代表大會﹐凌駕於國家憲法﹐國家領導人便要聽從他們的政治訴求下臺﹐就是他們「民主訴求」的實質內容的話。那麼﹐他們講求的已不再是民主政治﹐而是暴民政治(mobocracy)。

事實上﹐在整場運動中﹐對於中國的社會主義民主建設﹐並無甚麼實質性建議。假如他們真心要求中國進行政治體制改革﹐就應該從務實建設性的方向出發﹐提出發展社會主義民主制度的實質性要求﹐例如提出改變全國人民代表大會的產生辦法﹐思考全國人民代表大會的權限﹐或者國家主席和國務院總理的產生辦法等。遺憾的是﹐他們號稱「民主運動」﹐對於改變共和國的政治體制沒有任何建言﹐在政府與學生展開對話時﹐則採取對抗性態度導致破裂﹐後期群眾運動指揮系統更出現混亂﹐導致情況失控﹔或者高呼暴民政治式的下臺口號﹐加深政府與群眾之間的矛盾。在國務院依從憲法宣佈戒嚴令後﹐莫視國家法規繼續進行非法集會。試問這一切對中國政治體制改革毫無建樹的群眾運動﹐又怎能稱得上「民主運動」﹖

戒嚴令的問題
如果我們要評價六四事件是否一場愛國的群眾運動﹐那麼我們必定不能迴避國家頒佈戒嚴令的問題。

八九六四事件﹐乃是由1989年4月中旬前國家總理胡耀邦逝世後進行的悼念活動開始﹐其後群眾開始提出反貪污﹑反官倒的政治訴求﹐4月26日<人民日報>發表社論﹐批評學生群眾內有一少人意圖煽動反革命暴亂﹐引起部份學生不滿﹔89年4月29日國務院發言人袁木曾與學生作官方對話﹔至五月上旬﹐北京幾間大學的學生在天安門廣場開始進行絕食﹐要求中央收回<四二六社論>﹐並要求國家領導人與學生領袖進行對話﹐期後參與的群眾越來越多﹔ 89年5月14日中共中央委員閰明復，與當時北京高等學生自治聯合會(高自聯)學生領袖對話，可是，中途又被另一派別學生領袖破壞，中斷了正常對話﹔由於學生內部山頭林立，權力鬥爭激烈，中共根本不知道真正能代表學生的代表是誰，所以，中共中央委員閰明復在89年5月16日直接到天安門廣場跟學生作非官方對話﹔89年5月18日，國務院總理李鵬在人民大會堂與學生作官方會談。該次會談按學生要求作全國性廣播。而當時中共總書記趙紫揚已經以總書記身份否認426社論立場，即認為該次運動是動亂﹔5月19日趙紫揚到天安門廣場勸學生離去和停止絕食。這個時候，己經有不少學生要求復課，但當時學生領袖封了大學的教學樓反對復課，違反了他們口講的民主。

由於聚集群眾越來越多﹐國家官方亦多次與群眾進行接觸﹐包括中共中央政治局委員﹑國家總理與中共總書記經的對話與勸籲仍不願散去﹐而北京市已出現混亂情況。最終在5月20日﹐國家根據憲法宣佈在北京市進行戒嚴。

參考資料﹕李鹏在首都党政军干部大会上的讲话
http://www.tsquare.tv/chinese/archives/jieyan.html

作者: salad_bread 時間: 2009-5-28 19:13

同日﹐北京市人民政府宣佈戒嚴。

參考資料﹕北京市人民政府令（第一號）
根據李鵬簽署的國務院關於北京市部份地區的戒嚴令，為迅速制止社會動亂，維護首都正常的工作，生產、教學、科研、社會生活秩序，北京市人民政府特發布此令︰
（一）自一九八九年五月二十日十時起，對東城區、西城區、崇文區、宣武區、石景山區、海淀區、豐台區、朝陽區實行戒嚴；
（二）在戒嚴期間，嚴禁遊行、請願、罷課、罷工和其他損害正常秩序的活動；
（三）嚴禁任何人以任何方式製造和散佈謠言，進行串連、演講、散發傳單、煽動社會動亂；
（四）嚴禁衝擊黨政軍領導機關，嚴禁衝擊廣播、電視、通訊等重要單位，嚴禁破壞重要公共設施，嚴禁打、砸、搶、燒等一切破壞活動；
（五）嚴禁騷擾各國駐華使館和聯合國駐京機構；
（六）在戒嚴期間，發生上述應予禁止的活動，公安幹警、武警部隊和人民解放軍執勤人員有權採取一切手段，強行制止。以上各項公布望全體市民遵照執行。

市長陳希同

當年國家頒佈戒嚴令﹐是完全依照憲法要求。第八十九條詳列了中華人民共和國國務院的職權範圍﹐第(16)項﹐列明中國國務院有權決定省、自治區、直轄市的範圍內部分地區的戒嚴(現稱緊急狀態)。根據<北京市人民政府令>﹐在戒嚴令頒佈後﹐「嚴禁遊行、請願、罷課、罷工和其他損害正常秩序的活動」﹑「嚴禁任何人以任何方式製造和散佈謠言，進行串連、演講、散發傳單、煽動社會動亂」、「嚴禁破壞重要公共設施，嚴禁打、砸、搶、燒等一切破壞活動」。換言之﹐在戒嚴令頒佈後﹐任何人那時在廣場進行集會﹐已屬違法行為。而戒嚴令在5月20日頒佈﹐距離六四事件發生有15日之多。

我們需要思考的是﹐政府不論以官方對話﹑非官方對話﹑黨領導作代表﹑國家領導作代表﹑警告﹑戒嚴等許多方法都嘗試過，而群眾在戒嚴令頒佈後十五日依然進行非法集會﹐公然莫視國家合法合憲的國家法令﹐這場群眾運動還能稱為愛國運動嗎﹖如果香港人還相信法治精神﹐絕對應該重新反思這個問題。

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2009-5-28 21:17

32# chunsh
The natural duty of a soldier is to protect their people from invader,
but not crushing them with tanks.
There are only 4000-5000 students at Tienanmen square, the army
linking arms toget ...
somewhereintime 發表於 2009-5-28 15:39

How your background makes the truth of what did happen in 6.4?

作者: sheep 時間: 2009-5-28 22:03

34# somewhereintime

刀唔吉倒肉係唔知痛嘅

作者: somewhereintime 時間: 2009-5-28 22:10

40# Ultraman [
Personally I have nothing to do with CCP, however, my uncle had been
CCP all his life and he headed the municipal  police dispatch for some 20 years
so I have some insights  from  the Chinese government.
My bed time stories was the Red Army history instead of  fairy tales.
作者: sheep 時間: 2009-5-28 22:12

32# chunsh

我建議你舊片重溫
番睇第一集奪寶奇兵
福伯面對手執長劍舞動嘅黑鬼
一臉不屑咁
一槍  搞掂
作者: somewhereintime 時間: 2009-5-28 22:24

too bad, I dont think those students are totally without weapons(maybe a chair, a metal/wood stick, etc)
also, even if they only use fists and kicks, 1 soldier has to have the ability to fight again ...
chunsh 發表於 2009-5-28 16:05

150,000 elite troops VS 4,000 students with  some wooden sticks
It is like the Isreali  uses F16 to counter the Palestinian 's stone throwing,
yes, they are life threatened and provoked so they have all reason to defend themselves
作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2009-5-28 22:34

唔想再回，
如果真係大條道理，
洗乜成廿年都對呢個問題閃閃縮縮？？
作者: daimo 時間: 2009-5-28 22:38

我對老共设感情.  再者, 二十年前我也有去舉牌罵老共. 敬請各位不要罵我共狗了.  (BTW, that's just bad sport in a debate, IMO)

此帖, 一開始巳表明不是為任何一方開脫.

但是, 我只想知道真相.  有多少人死了, 在什麽地方死, 怎麽死, 為甚麽死, 他們死前作什麽, 誰殺的?
這些都是探求真相缺一不可的元素.  若果若干年後國際法庭要查6.4, 難道我們就只用當時BBC/CNN/routers 的報導作証???? (活多了二＋年, 到今日早不会單純相信西方傳媒了) 再者, 若要公平客觀, 我就更加不能只因一方是"弱勢", "正義" 就固執地相信他們100%誠實.

ATV/spanish TV's video.  此片的真實性對我來說關乎支聯會的誠信.  失望的是, 我還未見支聯會對此有任何回應.  若果有, 請指正.  (BTW 支聯會的黎洪前言不對後語怎算??)

若果侯德健沒說謊, 那誰為他平反!?
作者: Ultraman 時間: 2009-5-28 22:45

40# Ultraman [
Personally I have nothing to do with CCP, however, my uncle had been
CCP all his life and he headed the municipal  police dispatch for some 20 years
so I have some insights  from  the ...
somewhereintime 發表於 2009-5-28 22:10

Did you mean your background/experience could be a valid evidence to prove that there were killing or no killing in the 6.4 event? How're they related?
作者: somewhereintime 時間: 2009-5-28 22:59

47# Ultraman
I learned something from un-circulated  internal document from CCP,
and what the CCP really thought about 6.4
作者: sheep 時間: 2009-5-28 23:07

本帖最後由 sheep 於 2009-5-29 00:21 編輯

Did you mean your background/experience could be a valid evidence to prove that there were killing or no killing in the 6.4 event? How're they related?
Ultraman 發表於 2009-5-28 23:45

I believe our background and experience help us to clarify whose words can be trusted, who is telling the truth. Who is misleading, who is trying to cover up something.
某程度上不作回應我會視為默認
作者: somewhereintime 時間: 2009-5-28 23:13

I believe our background and experience help us to clarify whose words can be trusted, who is telling the truth. Who is misleading, who is trying to cover up something.
sheep 發表於 2009-5-28 23:07

Agree,  actually a lot of CCP members sympathize the students,
only the hardliners should bear the blame. At least that's what I
heard from the  faithful CCP's
作者: Ultraman 時間: 2009-5-29 01:31

I understand this kind of "logic". However, it doesn't necessary reflect the truth this way.
作者: rockypath 時間: 2009-5-29 02:27

I met 4 different people who were directly involved in the Tian An Me Square. One was a police man who was on the Tian An Men (where chairman Mao stood in 1949) and watched the whole clear-out procedure. 3 other were students who were in Tian An Me square. 2 of them used to be the PHD students at UBC (one of them has a brother who was a PLA to clear out the students as well) and the other one was a software engineer in a firm at downtown Vancouver.

The whole event had developed to the state which was not the original intention of the students and the students had totally lost the control of the situation. And the whole clear-out procedure is not as same as what some people on LYK thought to be or “heard” from “someone”.

I don’t think I can do a good job of explaining what I heard from these people. I don’t want to be called – “共狗”. (Of course, there were people (& students) died that time. I do not deny that at all)

At last, LYKs should consider what Daimo said – “我只想知道真相.  有多少人死了, 在什麽地方死, 怎麽死, 為甚麽死, 他們死前作什麽, 誰殺的? 這些都是探求真相缺一不可的元素.  若果若干年後國際法庭要查6.4, 難道我們就只用當時BBC/CNN/routers 的報導作証???? (活多了二＋年, 到今日早不会單純相信西方傳媒了) ”
作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2009-5-29 05:29

I met 4 different people who were directly involved in the Tian An Me Square. One was a police man who was on the Tian An Men (where chairman Mao stood in 1949) and watched the whole clear-out procedu ...
rockypath 發表於 2009-5-29 18:27

一定有人覺得你係共產黨黨員...
算吧! 每個人心裡總有自己一套, 無論其他人點講都好, 除非真相係100% 肯定, 否則真係好難會改變自己既信念.
點都好啦, 小弟覺得最緊要係為左中國好, 咁就得啦~
中國人, 中國心, 我們全都是龍的傳人~
作者: soli 時間: 2009-5-29 07:52

我覺得而家支聯會所要求既平反六四﹐  並不是為中國好。
不過當然唔排除有人係被人愚弄而不自知

我認為六四並不是要平反﹐  是要和解。
就這樣。
作者: soli 時間: 2009-5-29 08:13

本帖最後由 soli 於 2009-5-29 09:29 編輯

150,000 elite troops VS 4,000 students with  some wooden sticks
It is like the Isreali  uses F16 to counter the Palestinian 's stone throwing,
yes, they are life threatened and provoked so they have  ...
somewhereintime 發表於 2009-5-28 23:24

各種錄影證據﹐  當事人口供﹐  天安門廣場內﹐軍隊沒有開槍殺人﹐ 坦克碌人﹐
連當年宣稱屠殺的在場記者﹐  現在也改口﹐  說是粗暴驅散學生, 軍隊也是用木棍驅散而已。

只有支聯會天天在叫天安門廣場死3千人﹐  屠城﹗(不過而家好似都改左口)

天安門廣場外面﹐ 軍隊的確有開槍﹐  坦克有沒有碌死人就不確定。(不排除意外)
但廣場外面的大部份是北京民眾﹐  各種錄影片段證明他們在暴動。
放火燒車﹐  向列隊操過的軍警丟石﹐ 丟汽油彈﹐  殺軍警﹐ 劫軍車。
軍隊對暴徒開槍鎮壓﹐  是否過份﹐  可以討論。
但他們也有保護自己生命的權利﹐  難道你以為戴了頭盔﹐ 打過國民黨韓戰越戰,  磚頭丟過來就不會死?

不如這樣﹐  你戴頭盔﹐ 優待點再穿上避彈衣﹐ 然後讓我不斷用磚頭丟向你﹐  看看你能挺得住多少磚頭而不死吧。
作者: sheep 時間: 2009-5-29 09:25

各種錄影證據﹐  當事人口供﹐  天安門廣場內﹐軍隊沒有開槍殺人﹐ 坦克碌人﹐
連當年宣稱屠殺的在場記者﹐  現在也改口﹐  說是粗暴驅散學生, 軍隊也是用木棍驅散而已。

只有支聯會天天在叫天安門廣場死3千人 ...
soli 發表於 2009-5-29 09:13

佢講左好多次佢嚮果個位
係睇唔倒事實既全部
佢而家既工作政府崗位雖然話獨立自主
但係講既野都要有保留
所有既得利益者都會為自己打算
呢個先可悲
作者: soli 時間: 2009-5-29 10:32

哈哈~
你知道他說話的時候﹐司徒華同顛狗就坐在他旁邊嗎?

證據確鑿﹐  他們現在是不得不自打嘴巴。

但這樣還不夠﹐  支聯會要公開向巿民道歉﹐  並解釋為何要造新聞欺騙大眾。
作者: rockypath 時間: 2009-5-29 11:05

天安門廣場內﹐軍隊沒有開槍殺人﹐ 坦克碌人。..... 天安門廣場外面﹐ 軍隊的確有開槍 ...
soli 發表於 2009-5-29 09:13

This is same with what we were told by the policeman who watched the clear-out procedure. We met him last year in US and he is a long-time friend of my colleague. Even though I cannot verify what he told us is true or not, I don't think there is any need for him to tell us a fake story in a family dinner.
作者: sheep 時間: 2009-5-29 15:20

There are so many reasons why people cannot tell the truth.
They are the receiving ends of benefit
They made deals with the concern parties
They know there will be great impact when truth is told
It is none of their concern etc............
But, there must be some reasons behind
作者: rockypath 時間: 2009-5-29 15:34

There are so many reasons why people cannot tell the truth.
They are the receiving ends of benefit
They made deals with the concern parties
They know there will be great impact when truth is told
It i ...
sheep 發表於 2009-5-29 16:20

I am not sure whether you are replying to other people or questioning the degree of truth of what the policeman told us.

In fact, I thought about this as well. However, if there is any reason he cannot tell us the true story, he could have said - "I was not there", "I didn't see anything", "it was too far away from where I stood", "I cannot tell you what happened", "I don't want to talk about this" or any other reasonable excuses. There is no need for him to make up a fake story.
作者: Lik 時間: 2009-5-29 15:41

I met 4 different people who were directly involved in the Tian An Me Square. One was a police man who was on the Tian An Men (where chairman Mao stood in 1949) and watched the whole clear-out procedu ...
rockypath 發表於 2009-5-29 02:27

I personally know a few grad students from PRC as well, and I am hardly surprised by the phenomenon and their way of thinking you described.

From talking to them, it is quite clear to me that the majority of them have a mindset that has been groomed by the Mainland government and the overall atmosphere in the Mainland to put stability ahead of humanities. One of idiots (a Masters student) even went as fast as to thinking that Murderer Mao and Cultural Revolution was a necessarily evil to purge society from capitalistic corruptions and re-build society from the ground up. At the time, I was still young, so I was simply bewildered by this remarks and left speechless. Had I heard him stay this today, it would be quite a difficult task for me to restrain myself from punching him in his face. At the very least, I would grill him inside out even though he was a labs mate of mine.

I should emphasize that while the majority of them were brainwashed by CCP, some have discovered the true meaning of liberty and freedom as well. But by comparison, those make up for a smaller number among the Mainland grad students.

-Lik
作者: Lik 時間: 2009-5-29 15:47

This is same with what we were told by the policeman who watched the clear-out procedure. We met him last year in US and he is a long-time friend of my colleague. Even though I cannot verify what he told us is true or not, I don't think there is any need for him to tell us a fake story in a family dinner.rockypath 發表於 2009-5-29 11:05

Is it really that difficult to comprehend why they would not speak the truth? Unless you are as high profile and well-known as Dan Wang or something, what would it take for PRC to shut him up?

If you need examples of those who will blatantly lie, look no further than 孽國謙、懲戒南、痰妖宗、and 流肛華. I bet they wouldn't dare to say a word against CCP over a dinner conversation either.

-Lik
作者: rockypath 時間: 2009-5-29 16:02

Is it really that difficult to comprehend why they would not speak the truth? Unless you are as high profile and well-known as Dan Wang or something, what would it take for PRC to shut him up?

If yo ...
Lik 發表於 2009-5-29 16:47

You have your stand on the Tiananmen incident and you have your own channels of receiving information.

I think we are trying to discuss the truth of what happened within Tiananmen square, but not whether some students were brain-washed (especially they were not there when the incident happened).

I tried to pass on the information I received without adding my personal prejudgement or opinions.
作者: somewhereintime 時間: 2009-5-29 16:32

62# Lik

A very simple question everyone can understand:
IF THERE WAS NO WRONGDOING during the 6.4 , WHY THE CCP KEEP AVOIDING THE STRAIGHT ANSWER BUT KEEP BRINGING UP THEIR ECONOMIC ACHIEVEMENT
INSTEAD?
AND WHAT CRIME  HAD PREMIER ZHAO COMMITTED OTHER THAN HIS SYMPATHY FOR THE STUDENTS? GROUND FOR 19 YEARS WITHOUT TRAIL?
CAN SOMEONE FIND THE LAW FROM THE CONSITUTION
I have no doubt withe their economic growth, and the PLA had done the
good deed during the Sichuan rescue, but they are 2 distinctive dfiferent issues
作者: rockypath 時間: 2009-5-29 16:37

62# Lik

A very simple question everyone can understand:
IF THERE WAS NO WRONGDOING during the 6.4 , WHY THE CCP KEEP AVOIDING THE STRAIGHT ANSWER BUT KEEP BRINGING UP THEIR ECONOMIC ACHIEVEMENT
INS ...
somewhereintime 發表於 2009-5-29 17:32

I think we are trying to collect information about the truth of the incident, but not trying play "smart reasoning" --- "because.... then it must be ....." or "if ...., then.....".
作者: somewhereintime 時間: 2009-5-29 16:47

64# somewhereintime
My uncle, who was the head of Municipal police told me the  story on 6.4
he was able to study from the CLASSIFIED UNCIRCLATED DOCUMENTs. He has no reason to lie to me especially in China.
He died before he retire in 1994
作者: rockypath 時間: 2009-5-29 16:55

64# somewhereintime
My uncle, who was the head of Municipal police told me the  story on 6.4
he was able to study from the CLASSIFIED UNCIRCLATED DOCUMENTs. He has no reason to lie to me especially ...
somewhereintime 發表於 2009-5-29 17:47

Would you mind to tell us what exactly your uncle told you about what exactly happend within Tiananmen square especially at the night of clearing out the square. And we can take it as one of the source to verify against other pieces of information we can collect.
作者: somewhereintime 時間: 2009-5-29 17:10

66# somewhereintime
My uncle showed me his diary, on June 20th. 1989 he wrote
I joined the Red Army when I was 13, as a CCP, my life belong to the Motherland,
and I'm ready to sacrifice my life for my party and my people.
I was serious wounded many time during the Civil war, especially the liberation of Hai Nan Island(now Province) with no regret. But suppressing our own children? they are the future of our party and Motherland, it was the first time I hesitate for being a CCP member and  doubted about the decision of Central.
His daughters' girl friends  died in Tienanmen
作者: rockypath 時間: 2009-5-29 17:39

本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2009-5-29 18:51 編輯

66# somewhereintime
My uncle showed me his diary, on June 20th. 1989 he wrote
I joined the Red Army when I was 13, as a CCP, my life belong to the Motherland,
and I'm ready to sacrifice my life for  ...
somewhereintime 發表於 2009-5-29 18:10

Is it what your uncle told you???? Your uncle’s regret of being a CPP member tell us nothing about what happened within Tiananmen Square at that night.

You made big statements about what happened at Tiananmen and told us you know inside information about the incident using your uncle’s name to back you up, but it turned out he couldn’t back you up at all.

BTW, I hope you don't tell us that you cannot tell us what your uncle told you since it was from the CLASSIFIED & UNCIRCULATED DOCUMENTS.
作者: somewhereintime 時間: 2009-5-29 17:53

本帖最後由 somewhereintime 於 2009-5-29 18:05 編輯

68# somewhereintime
I read  5 of his diaries,  covering 1988-1993,  he regretted  what had happened and felt ashame for what the army had done in Tienanmen Square.
He did not involve in the killing, but received classified internal documents.
and since his daughters'  girl friends participated in the students' movement,
he had info from both side.
I've  left Hong Kong so long  and  only met with  him when he was ailing.
I'm  not in politics, and I did not go to the Tienanmen Square in 1989 , I got most of the info from relatives in China and Hong Kong. And I only  speak for myself, as an Oversea Chinese Canadian, I have no intention and not qualified to make big statement.
I've spent most of my life in Canada,  even I was born in China.
作者: rockypath 時間: 2009-5-29 18:09

本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2009-5-29 19:11 編輯

70# somewhereintime

So you don't know what exactly happened within Tiananmen Square especially at that night then (as same as us).
作者: soli 時間: 2009-5-29 19:20

"IF THERE WAS NO WRONGDOING during the 6.4 , WHY THE CCP KEEP AVOIDING THE STRAIGHT ANSWER BUT KEEP BRINGING UP THEIR ECONOMIC ACHIEVEMENT
INSTEAD?"

拉薩暴亂中共咪又係新聞封鎖﹐  唔俾查唔俾問﹐
只不斷講西藏開發得點好點好。
呢D就係中共一貫既做法﹐  唔係單單六四事件先係o甘。

唔通真係好似CNN講o甘中共用軍隊鎮壓和平示威既憎人﹐死成千人?
醒下啦~

西方國家而加仲係掌控住世界既輿論﹐  中共其實講咩都會俾人扭曲。
所以中共就索性唔講﹐  悶聲大發財﹐ 但並唔係默認。
作者: Lik 時間: 2009-5-29 19:33

RockyPath dude, believe what you want to believe. The CCP's modus operandi has always remained the same -- they cover up what is embarrassing on their part, whether through bribing, intimidation, violation against their own written laws... or worse. The only thing that matters is the continuation of their staying in power. In particular, human lives and humanitarian considerations are absolutely worthless in the face of their authoritarian rule. From the Tiananmen massacre 20 years ago to the Sichuan earthquakes last year, we see repeated reflections of how the CCP operates.

If you don't know anything else about the CCP, at least know this. And this is not how a country should be run.

-Lik
作者: peter236 時間: 2009-5-29 20:02

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2009-5-29 21:16 編輯

I personally know a few grad students from PRC as well, and I am hardly surprised by the phenomenon and their way of thinking you described.

From talking to them, it is quite clear to me that the ma ...
Lik 發表於 2009-5-29 16:41

Lik, the British and the US secret services groomed you to be their agent. What a moron you are?

The way you is speak is very typical of those western media or western anti-China bashers. First, they claimed that everything the Chinese government says is propaganda. Then they claimed that every Chinese citizens was groomed by the Chinese government and therefore will always speak along the party lines. In this way, those western racists claim that whatever they say about China is the truth.

What we see instead, is the crumbling of the Anglo-Saxon economic system and therefore the exposure of the lies that they have been telling for the past couple of decades. Countries like the US and UK are going bankrupt and will therefore will pull Canada together with them.
作者: peter236 時間: 2009-5-29 20:04

68# somewhereintime
I read  5 of his diaries,  covering 1988-1993,  he regretted  what had happened and felt ashame for what the army had done in Tienanmen Square.
He did not involve in the killing ...
somewhereintime 發表於 2009-5-29 18:53

wow, what a fool you are? The Chinese government needs to apologize for 6.4, but that does not mean we have to believe your lies here. Please show us the proof here.
作者: Lik 時間: 2009-5-29 20:34

Lik, the British and the US secret services groomed you to be their agent. What a moron you are?

The way you is speak is very typical of those western media or western anti-China bashers.peter236 發表於 2009-5-29 20:02

I am not even gonna bother wasting my time to respond to you. If you have any capacity for individual thinking, you wouldn't have been saying this.

-Lik
作者: Ultraman 時間: 2009-5-29 20:54

68# somewhereintime
I read  5 of his diaries,  covering 1988-1993,  he regretted  what had happened and felt ashame for what the army had done in Tienanmen Square.
He did not involve in the killing ...
somewhereintime 發表於 2009-5-29 17:53

Please just simply make your sentences clear. May I ask:
Your uncle said/meant that CCP received official order from the China government, that they had to kill the students. Was that right?
Your uncle didn't kill any student himself, but he saw other CCP did kill students intentionally because of the order. Was that right?
And;
The girl of your uncle's daughter said she saw CCP killed students intentionally. Was that right?
作者: peter236 時間: 2009-5-29 21:24

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2009-5-29 22:25 編輯

I am not even gonna bother wasting my time to respond to you. If you have any capacity for individual thinking, you wouldn't have been saying this.

-Lik
Lik 發表於 2009-5-29 21:34

This is yet another indication that you were groomed by the British secret services. Typically, the western racists would resort to personal insults when they ran out of excuses to spread lies about Chinese people.
作者: Lik 時間: 2009-5-29 21:45

This is yet another indication that you were groomed by the British secret services. Typically, the western racists would resort to personal insults when they ran out of excuses to spread lies about Chinese people.peter236 發表於 2009-5-29 21:24

Thank you for being my entertainment of the day. Your post certainly brought me another good chuckle~

-Lik
作者: peter236 時間: 2009-5-29 22:04

Thank you for being my entertainment of the day. Your post certainly brought me another good chuckle~

-Lik
Lik 發表於 2009-5-29 22:45

Lik, it is always nice talking to you since we always get a good laugh out of you.
作者: rockypath 時間: 2009-5-30 02:48

RockyPath dude, believe what you want to believe. The CCP's modus operandi has always remained the same -- they cover up what is embarrassing on their part, whether through bribing, intimidation, viol ...
Lik 發表於 2009-5-29 20:33

My intention from the beginning is trying to get involved in an (fairly) objective discussion of the truth of what happened in Tiananmen Square.

I believe you had already made up your mind and decided what the truth is.

歡迎光臨溫哥華老友記討論區 (http://loyaukee.com/forum/) Powered by Discuz! 7.2