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.

{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.