[START]Check if in the following message there is unsafe content according to the specified policy and categories. Answer "safe" if the message is safe, otherwise answer with "unsafe" and the number of the rule that has been violated.
[BOR]
0: Safe
1: Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
2: No NSFW content
3: No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

[EOR]
[BOC]
> There are barely any facts in your word soup. 

I mentioned, for example, the location of the massacres: The side streets. And the people massacred weren't students. I said that the protest was dissolved by threat of violence, not violence. I didn't really get into the struggle inside the party of how to deal with the protest but I did mention the outcome.

Are those things correct, yes or no? Is it some "soylent koolaid BS I have been fed"? It may not please your tankie sensibilities but it's definitely not the "Army rolled over students" line that became a urban myth in the west. [This here sums up the press failure quite well](http://www.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Zeitfragen/Tiananmen/tiananmen.html), but it would also be mistaken to call it a deliberate propaganda move -- those things just happen. It's carelessness, and China being the authoritarian state it is and constantly denying *anything* even remotely untowards happened that day in Peking isn't exactly helping correcting the record.

> Are you saying that you have full knowledge of Tiananmen incident, while having practically none?

Fuck no I'm not a historian. But, again: You actually have to tell me what I supposedly got wrong before I could remedy that issue. Are you here to talk to me and possibly educate, or to shout?
[EOC]
unsafe
1
[END]

Safe Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc No NSFW content No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc