3 ms·
Your post is less constructive: your only argument is an appeal to the lack of trustworthiness of the Chinese government. Even so, it would have been better if
by nsajko 5y ago
Your post is less constructive: your only argument is an appeal to the lack of trustworthiness of the Chinese government. Even so, it would have been better if you stated what are your opinions on the number of casualties regarding both events.
To give a starting point to the discussion; the English Wikipedia gives about the same summary for the independent estimates of casualties related to both events: from hundreds to thousands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_Uprising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_Uprising
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests
- coupdejarnac 5y agoAppeal to the lack of trustworthiness of the CCP: this is the level of discourse?
- nsajko 5y agoNo idea what you're saying now.
- xbar 5y agoOP is saying CCP is known untrustworthy.
- scaramanga 5y agoWe also have strong reason to believe that south korean figures are a gross underestimate (if you read the linked wikipedia article). Victims have a hard time coming forward if there is a strong possibility of being victimised again (korea has a long history of blacklisting victims families for generations, it's not just a north korean thing).
- nsonha 5y agoJesus is also well-known if we go by that logic Also it doesn't mean anything. If you're saying the numbers we have might be wrong, that is an useless statement for the purpose of comparing the two incidents.