213
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2025
213 points (97.3% liked)
Asklemmy
48747 readers
749 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
What's your source for this? Had they been ordered to shoot a bunch of protesters, why would they have let protesters in the square leave peacefully?
The much more likely scenario is soldiers were met with deadly violence at some point and -- as most armed people who face deadly violence will do -- opened fire.
I'm not making an argument about what violence was justified and what wasn't. I'm pointing out that the facts we agree on contradict your claim that there was some top-down order to massacre people, and that you haven't provided any support for that claim in the first place.