• Goronmon@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    {Caution} Lastly, here’s an article written arguing that the event is misrepresented in mass media. I link it mainly because it includes photographic evidence that is very difficult to argue with for reasons beyond it being difficult to look at. Graphic depiction of stripped corpses of soldiers that were strung up after death.

    “Here are photos that show things other than soldiers shooting civilians proving that soldiers didn’t shoot civilians!” isn’t as convincing as you might think it is. And wow, that article doesn’t even pretend to not be straight up propaganda.

    • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No one, myself included, said that soldiers didn’t shoot civilians. Soldiers did shoot civilians. The purpose of the photos is to establish that there was killing of soldiers prior to that point that was evidence of a (likely small) group of very aggressive militants among a faction of the protestors, ones who seemed to be intent on instigating violence. The event was much more complicated than soldiers firing into a crowd in cold blood, and as internal reporting that I linked above mentioned, many people repudiated the image painted in westerners’ minds of soldiers wantonly firing into a crowd of huddled protestors. Their aim plainly was not to kill the peaceful protestors but to capture or kill militants who demonstrated a willingness to kill in cold blood. The civilians who were killed were caught up in that crossfire.

      The photos are helpful, but beyond that I think the strongest source are those reports from the US embassy and LA diplomat and the interviews with the student leaders themselves. I would encourage you to look at those.

      • Goronmon@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Their aim plainly was not to kill the peaceful protestors but to capture or kill militants who demonstrated a willingness to kill in cold blood. The civilians who were killed were caught up in that crossfire.

        Let’s assume you are right that soldiers never purposefully shot civilians as their main goal. Unless you are claiming that these “militants” were fighting with their own guns, I don’t see how firing blindly into groups of protestors with firearms is that much better?

        But I don’t believe that violence against the protestors was never part of the plan. Just like in the US I would never put it past the government to use violence, “accidental” or otherwise, as part of a scenario to suppress a large-scale protest movement.

        • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The militants among the protestors did have petrol bombs and they took guns from at least one flamed-out APC, and the soldiers didn’t know what else they had. Beyond that, the soldiers still weren’t firing blindly into groups of protestors, read the links I posted, even just the brief report from the Latin American diplomat.