rockypath

原本係未登頭條時，班學生大部份都係柴娃娃，發泄完情緒就算，大部份人都已經復課，只有少部份嘅學生條氣仲未順，但都唔係無夠！只要趙生做些動作，開導吓就無咩大問題！

點知某人唔幫拖不特止，仲從中作梗，破壞！ ...
Nam 發表於 2009-6-6 01:25

The true situation is not completely as same as what you said here. If you look further what happend around China and in other provinces, and what people outside of of Beijing City (thousand miles away) did during that period. You will know China was actually in a dangerous situation. If you saw the clip of 李敖, you should be able to get an idea. If you look further to other materials, you should have a better understanding.

rockypath

Yes, there were many protests around the country, but does that justify the CCP using real bullets and tanks to viciously crack down on and murder the students and public at and near Tiananmen?

I da ...
Lik 發表於 2009-6-6 10:31

First, I do not try to defence CCP and what it had been done in 6.4.

Many people had questioned why CCP couldn't handle 6.4. in a better way which they believe CPP should (or must) have done.

Can I ask a question? If CCP believed the country was in a crisis of collapsing, do you think it would use any force that is necessary to restore the order and deal with the consequence later? Do you think other countries will do differently if they are under the same situation?

There is no need to look further. Just look at our neighbour – USA. It had not only done the same thing (it was not even a movement to overthrow the government), but it invaded other countries and overthrew the governments of other countries as well for the great and mighty  reason – to protect the American people, the Freedom, and the Democracy which many people had admired and praised.   

This is not a defence statement. It is just a question to share.

rockypath

That is very likely what Elder Deng had in mind, and hence the iron fisted bloody approach to massacre the students. Would other countries do the same? Some might, but many more will not. Martial law ...
Lik 發表於 2009-6-6 17:06

First, the reason I share with you the question is try to help you to have a much rounded view of 6.4 and look at it from a greater perspective.

Second, you had said much about CCP should have not done this or that. Can I ask if you were Elder Deng, what would you do differently and why would you believe you can resolve the crisis effectively (we are talking about the crisis of the collapse of a nation).

rockypath

If I were Elder Deng, I would sack Li Peng and talk to the students with an open mind. The students have proven their qualities to be a peaceful bunch, as did the majority of the public. They had an a ...
Lik 發表於 2009-6-6 21:01

I have to say it sincerely after reading your post (nothing personal) – “you should find out more about 6.4 from different sources. Not just things happened in Beijing and at Tiananmen Square, but what happened outside of it. The knowledge of the political, social and economic environment of that time will help you to have a better view of 6.4.”

It is too much to explain the situation and I have to leave to do some more research on your own. I can provide some keywords for you.

•        The possibility of 政變;
•        黨內和軍隊內部的分歧被公開化（趙紫陽has much responsibility for this）並引起社會不安和形勢劇烈惡化. This cost CCP the opportunity to continue communicating with students since the situation worsen rapidly (you might not like to hear this.);
•        People and students began to walk out from factories and schools and got on to streets across the country;
•        Students and people began to flood into Beijing from all around the country;
•        Local governments began to became dysfunctional;
•        Ramous began to spread across the nations;
•        Untrue foreign news reports began to flood the western media network;   
•        The possibility of 國家分裂
•        … and much more… (you can continue the list after you find out more about it)

Just another question to you – if China was 分裂to different smaller states because of 6.4, what will China become today and what kind of life will the mainland Chinese people be in?

Elder Deng had said – “穩定壓倒一切”. Do you understand why he said so and what he mean and under what situation he said that?

rockypath

其實好簡單，你所有嘅論點，聚即至最後嘅呢一句：

就反映晒你同我嘅分別：你堂而皇之咁話 "國家穩定" 比其他一切 -- 包括人命同無辜嘅犧牲 -- 都來得重要，而小弟則覺得人命凌駕於所謂嘅 "國家穩定"。你可以話我唔 ...
Lik 發表於 2009-6-7 09:45

You have been criticizing other people are cold hearted, narrow minded and stubborn. These all applied to you. I have to tell you – “don’t try to defend yourself just for the mean of defending yourself; It just makes yourself look foolish.”

Do you really believe”穩定壓倒一切” just for the sake of economy?????? If that is you truly believe in, I feel pity for you. You do not worth my time to discuss this topic with you.

”穩定壓倒一切” is to stop China from breaking down to different states and prevent the possibility of civil war and the invasion of other countries (more lives to be lost and more blood to be shedded). It guarantees the continue development of economic and political reform. It gives mainland Chinese a stable, peaceful and prosperous life and a hope of a brighter future both economically and politically.

If China breaks down, there will be a big set back both economically and politically. Will be there any Democracy? You tell me.

So you think Elder Deng only know how to drive the economic reform? He is, in fact,  the driving force for the political reform as well. Without him, we won’t see the reform and improvement in China political system and structure at all, and as well as the improvement in human right.

“中國會分裂？” – I can only tell you to read some about the Chinese history. Can you tell me how many times in Chinese history China had broken down to smaller states and was invaded by other countries?

Did anyone expect USSR collapsed so rapidly (I felt it just happened overnight) when it was one of the only two supper powers in the world?

Is who truly for a better tomorrow for China and Chinese people? Is it you or Elder Deng? You tell me.

I really feel pity for you. You know too little and keep arguing just for the sake of arguing. It just makes me loose the respect to you.   

無知並不是罪﹐  真正的罪是以無知為榮。

rockypath

算把啦, 中國幾千年封建思想已經深入某D人血液裡.
中國歷史上, 小人奸臣多不勝數, 今於助紂為虐的如繁星不可數, 名君名臣有幾許? 有多少正直有膽有識之士?

我不期望能名留青史, 但也不甘為愚昧之輩在權力前埋沒良 ...
rainbow-davie 發表於 2009-6-7 12:46

I would be interested in knowing what you mean when you said:

•        愚昧之輩 – why do you think we are愚昧之輩?
•        在權力前埋沒良心 – what had we done or said?
•        指鹿為馬 – what had we done or said?
•        做其犬奴 – what had we done?

We made a statement then we explained what it mean and provided evidences to support our points. So what are your points and how would you backup your statements?

rockypath

We have had our Chinese general election in early 20's.

somewhereintime 發表於 2009-6-7 11:55

You call that a general election and that is the general election you asked for? Sorry, please look up the history book and learn more about it.

By the way, do you know when is the time women in Canada got the right to vote?

rockypath

Anyone of you willing to give up just everything here to return and Build a better Socialist Country?
somewhereintime 發表於 2009-6-7 18:06

You have made it very clear that you hate CCP, but you let your hatred blind your eyes, your ears, your mind, and probably your heart as well.

I do not really care which party is in power, but I sincerely care which party will provide a stable, peaceful and prosperous life to Chinese people and protect them from the invasion of other foreign countries, as well continuingly giving more freedom and democracy to its people.

Hey, you have not answered my question yet – “when was the time woman in Canada got the right to vote.” It is relating to your question and the points I want to make.

rockypath

你又唔洗咁快對號入座, 大把人會同你一齊咬文嚼字同我拗. 你放心, 你都有千千萬萬同道中人. 但吾道亦不孤.
我講既野, 你明就明, 詐唔明又得, 唔明又可以, 隨你啦, 對號入座更適隨尊便. 你自我感覺良好就得啦. ...
rainbow-davie 發表於 2009-6-7 18:11

I think you just told me that I can basically ignore what you said.

rockypath

Canadian women became eligible to vote in 1916,
somewhereintime 發表於 2009-6-7 18:42

It is right, but not quite right. Please keep looking up the answer.