Tian an Men protests were peaceful and non-violent. Why do you need to suppress them using guns and tanks? That's the perfect opportunity to embrace progressive regime change/evolution instead of gunning people down.
So were the initial Syrian protests. The problem is, as a head of state, you're responsible for the whole populace. You don't know where it will end. It could literally end in the breakup and destruction of your country, never mind something as trivial as regime change.
EDIT> Or are you saying that peaceful protest could be met with some perhaps token concessions. Then if the protesters get violent, the state is justified in using violence?
Syria became mess not because there were peaceful protests, but because the extreme violence and oppression visited down by the government tore the country apart. You are holding the peaceful protesters responsible for the consequences of violent state repression. Perhaps you might want to rethink where the blame for that repression lies. Personally, I don't think it lies with the protesters.
Imagine an alternate timeline in which the Syrian government opened up dialogue with the protesters and negotiated a new constitutional convention. There is no reason they could not have chosen to do that. But here you are advocating the kind of extreme response that in Tiananmen 'only' lead to decades of despotic rule but which in Syria culminated in nerve gas attacks in civilian areas.
Curious how the extreme violence of the Chinese response in Tienanmen is responsible for the continuation of the government politics; while the same extreme response in Syria would be responsible for tearing apart the country.
Let me express a doubt about this kind of explanation, that seems more fit to put the blame squarely on the bad guy rather than understanding what happened. When protests turn so easily into a civil war that tears a country apart, it probably means that there are lots of people ready with weapons and military training, and that the government's response maybe hasn't been hard enough to prevent it.
Sometimes extreme repression works, sometimes it doesn't. It depends on the conditions at the time and how the violence is applied. However it is never necessary. Take the USSR for example. During the coup that ousted Gorbachev there were mass public protests in Red Square blocking access to the Kremlin. The Junta ordered tank units under their control to drive straight through the crowds, but the tank commander refused. If he had followed his orders we'd be talking about Red Square in the same terms as Tiananmen Square.
Violent suppression and murder of peaceful protesters is simply not justifiable. Violent protesters, maybe. Riots against people and property, ok. Peaceful protesters, no. When you have an already violent situation sometimes countering the violence with violence is the only option. But instigating violence where there currently is none is IMHO clearly wrong.
Protests usually follow some egregious government policy or action. Yes, there are protests that aren't very well organized, or lack a core concept to them. But those quickly fall apart with limited or no intervention. When they don't fall apart, it's an indication of something that's already wrong, rather than something that's about to go wrong.
There were actually some leaders with sympathetic and liberal movements in the times that led up to (and during) the TS incident, but afterwards the Chinese government either forced them to toe the party line or removed them from power. Their unwillingness to allow peaceful dissent, their massive overreaction, and their blatant suppression of the facts and of the expressions of grief afterwards have certainly fixed the governmental direction for quite some time. Hardline censorship and oppression supporters got more power, while those opposed got purged or learned to stay quiet. The government policy was at a crossroads until then, but they doubled-down on a surveillance state.
A government that straight up murders citizens during a peaceful protest and then refuses to let them talk about it for decades after has a huge effect. It's not just on the leaders in power, either. Even if they don't get the whole story, the Chinese populace is quite savvy about what can and can't be talked about. Most people will stand up for what they think is right when the risk is relatively small. TS reflected that, with academic elites being openly honest about their opinions about the state and future of the country. China was changing a lot and they thought there was finally a chance for a dialogue. But it was made quite clear that non-violent protest will be squashed and you will quite possibly be murdered or smeared for speaking a contrary opinion - even if it's out of patriotism.
It drove all dissenters into hiding or out of the country, leaving an empty playground for military and political power seekers who had no problem with heavy-handed retaliation.
> Curious how the extreme violence of the Chinese response in Tienanmen is responsible for the continuation of the government politics; while the same extreme response in Syria would be responsible for tearing apart the country.
The thing in common is that, rather than listen to their citizens, the government chose suppression and murder. The citizen reactions in both cases are hugely different. But the source of the problem isn't different - an oppressive government. We don't shame people who back down when the alternative is death or civil war. It's an understandable choice. But we do shame people and governments who literally can't tolerate dissent without military might. Especially if they won't let you talk about it afterwards. Resorting to military might is a sign of political weakness, not strength.
We know using violence against population is useless if the people are determined to stand for what they believe in. That's the whole story of decolonization across the world. Guns just give you time, but sooner or later people rise again. Look at India. They were gunned down many times, but they did not give up, and ultimately made their voices heard.
