@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:Thats because you are there, with your single issue mind, reminding me of the phallic association.
Will u be good enuf to explain what
self defense (in this case, from hurled rocks) has to do
with our PENISES ??
I do not see any connection.
Will u enlighten us ??
farmerman wrote:You stand there with a gun, pronouncing who is or isnt anti-freedom.
Freedom of speech.
Have u noticed how libertarians do not impugn u authoritarians' bodily organs? I guess that 's just a
collectivist thing.
(Well, I don 't need to
guess; I know that from observation.)
farmerman wrote:what, has someone given you the license to cleanse our shores of those who dont agree with your gun totin ways?
I did not command u to migrate hence.
If I had the power to banish u,
I 'd leave u where u r.
As a matter of fact,
even tho I don 't have the power to banish u,
I m still going to leave u where u r anyway.
farmerman wrote:HMMMMM, David, ya gotta take some time off and enjoy the spring, Theres so much out there that dosnt need to be shot.
I know; I expect a beautiful day in NY.
David
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:edgarblythe wrote:I recall when it happened and believing the Guard was not provoked to kill their fellow citizens this way.
I believe there was malice on the part of the ones did the shooting.
He who throws rocks at men bearing guns shoud expect to get shot. That shoud be very, very clear.
That shoud be explained at mother 's knee.
Ed, I wonder if u 'd feel differently, if guys were hitting
YOU with rocks.
(However, the Guard did not aim
as carefully as it shoud have.)
David
edgarblythe wrote:Stupid bastard. The innocent students who were guilty of being on their way to class
had no rocks and were not even interested in the protest.
OmSigDAVID wrote:That is the reason that I said that thay shoud have aimed more carefully.
Presumably, if u r being stoned while u have a gun, u will peacefully
just let them continue hitting u with rocks. That 's fine.
David
edgarblythe wrote:You goddammed idiot.
Well, if I 'm an "
idiot" then where does that leave
YOU??
I 'm not poverty stricken living in a trailer and still working.
edgarblythe wrote:YOu don't even know what happened there, but you are so
fanatic to defend shooting people you defend killing people
who were not throwing rocks and were just passing by.
Everyone who lived thru those times knows what happened.
What a stupid thing for u to say.
Notice how he does not answer
about letting himself get hit with rocks as the National Guardsmen were.
Ed just knows how to hurl personal insults.
David
It's a personal insult to have a work like you on this forum. I should have left you on ignore, which is where I have had you since your dumbass remarks on the discussion of McCarthyism. Back you go, this time forever.
The point that David doesn't know what he's talking about, and is just motivated by his gun obsession is well taken. I've read up on this subject since the event, and several things stand out. One is that the Guard came in there with a belligerent attitude--they fixed bayonets and cleared the streets around campus on Sunday night, the evening before the shooting, and no one was throwing anything at them. EB has made the point that several of the casualties were just students moving between classroom buildings. There was an informal rally called near the "liberty bell" in the center of campus, and there was some rock throwing there, but the shootings took place after the Guard had moved away from that area. One group had marched to an athletic field near the building which housed the journalism department--there were literally dozens of witnesses there who were being encouraged by their professors to take careful note of what happened. That included students who took cameras outside. There is a famous photograph that one student took showing a Guardsman aiming his rifle directly at that student, when no one was throwing rocks at them from that direction.
As for the paltry excuse that people were throwing rocks at them, these jokers were wearing steel pot helmets--what sort of serious damage can any clown claim would have resulted from the rocks? My guess is that these poor saps were marched hither and yon, wearing their gas masks (because they were using tear gas earlier in an attempt to disperse the students), and whipped up by their officers. The officers claimed they did not order the shooting, nor participate in it, but once again, the photographic evidence shows officer with .45 automatics in their hands shooting along with their men. You've got these jokers cornered by the fence in an athletic field, because their officers had marched them there, having failed to do basic recon on their location. Their field of vision is restricted by the gas masks, and if you've ever worn one of those, you'd know that the loudest thing is your own breathing. It was a situation tailor made to increase the sense of isolation of the individual Guardsman and ramp up their heart rate. Their discipline was obviously poor, too, because either their officers were lying and did order them to fire, or they fired without orders.
The situation itself was largely responsible for the tragedy, but the officers there did a piss poor job, and bear the ultimate responsibility for having put their men in that situation, and for having failed to either anticipate events, or to control them once they were in motion.
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:Thanks Olga. There has never been any valid excuse for this.
The rock throwers deserved to get shot,
but the National Guard were not sufficiently accurate in shot placement into the culpable throwers of rocks,
with the effect that some innocent students were shot.
farmerman wrote:Our little sojourn into becoming more of a police state needed
to end by recognizing that these kids died or were wounded
to help prop up some paranoid gangster administration.
Paranoid?? According to u, the communist war was not real? Imaginary? Was the nazi war also imaginery?
David
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:I should have left you on ignore, which is where
I have had you since your dumbass remarks on the discussion of McCarthyism. Back you go, this time forever.
I will reciprocate. Good bye, commie-loving loser!
David
We know that some of the casualties were not guilty of throwing rocks.
That has been known for a long time.
To whatever extent the rockthowers were hit with gunfire: thay brought it on themselves.
Throwing rocks at an armed man is an act of suicide.
To the extent that innocent bystanders were shot:
the Guard was negligent. We heard nothing about any gas masks
being involved in the shooting; fantasy.
Obviously, only the top of the head is protected by helmets, with full facial exposure.
David
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote: Paranoid?? According to u, the communist war was not real? Imaginary? Was the nazi war also imaginery?
You and ANus have something in common that Id not noticed in you before. It seems that if I didnt say something, you wont miss any opportunity to assert that I did by posing questions that arent even remotely posed in my preParanoid?? According to u, the communist war was not real? Imaginary? Was the nazi war also imaginery?ious post.
Why do you two guys do that? cant you comprehend all the real substance in my post so that you dont have to make up stuff, or is it the years of being a mouthpice that make you wanta sneak in some leading questions that are baseless/ Im not sure.
So which is it
1no comprehension skills or
2You still a shill.?
@OmSigDAVID,
First & last word to you on this subject, David:
Those students were exercising their freedom of speech as American citizens. They did not deserve to be shot at & those four did not deserve to die for it. They had every right to publicly protest about US involvement in the war in Vietnam.
@farmerman,
Quote: Paranoid?? According to u, the communist war was not real? Imaginary? Was the nazi war also imaginery?
farmerman wrote: You and ANus have something in common
Please explain this reference??
I don 't understand.
farmerman wrote:that Id not noticed in you before. It seems that if I didnt say something, you wont miss any opportunity to assert that I did by posing questions that arent even remotely posed in my preParanoid?? According to u, the communist war was not real? Imaginary? Was the nazi war also imaginery?ious post.
There is something rong with the text there, Farmer. Confusing.
Are u taking the position that
only paranoid people
cared about defending America from the communists and that the commies were
NOT a real threat??
farmerman wrote:Why do you two guys do that?
WHICH 2 guys? Who?
Quote:cant you comprehend all the real substance in my post so that you dont have to make up stuff, or is it the years of being a mouthpice that make you wanta sneak in some leading questions that are baseless/ Im not sure.
So which is it
1no comprehension skills or
2You still a shill.?
MAJOR comprehension problems on this entire post. I hope that u 'll clarify.
David
@msolga,
msolga wrote:...Those students were exercising their freedom of speech as American citizens. ..They had every right to publicly protest...
The fact is they didn't - not on university grounds on that day. I'm somewhat surprised you would comment on these tragic events without bothering to inform yourself first as to their details and the legal aftermath. This excerpt is from a fairly reliable site in re jurisprudence:
Quote:....A special state GRAND JURY issued indictments against 25 persons in October 1970, but found, in its 18-page report, that the guardsmen were not subject to criminal prosecution because they "fired their weapons in the honest and sincere belief … that they would suffer serious bodily injury had they not done so."
[....]
The $675,000 settlement was dispersed among 13 plaintiffs, the largest amount going to an injured student who was paralyzed in the incident. ...The statement also noted that
the Sixth Circuit had upheld as "lawful" the university's ban on rallies and its May 4 order for the students to disperse.
Read more: Kent State Student Killings
http://law.jrank.org/pages/7983/Kent-State-Student-Killings.html#ixzz0n3cxlDpQ
@msolga,
msolga wrote:First & last word to you on this subject, David:
Those students were exercising their freedom of speech as American citizens.
They did not deserve to be shot at & those four did not deserve to die for it.
They had every right to publicly protest about US involvement in the war in Vietnam.
Your comment conveniently leaves out all reference
to their throwing rocks at the National Guard.
I deem it obvious that if I ever throw rocks
at a man armed with a gun, I am going to get shot; deservedly so.
If thay had been
peacefully expressing opinions,
then I 'd agree with u.
David
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:We heard nothing about any gas masks
being involved in the shooting; fantasy.
What's this "we" ****--you got a mouse in your pocket?
What an idiot . . .
When if comes to your ranting about guns, you have scant regard for the truth.
@High Seas,
High Seas, students all over the world protested about the Vietnam war on their campuses & on the streets (along with ordinary citizens).
What was the reason for the Kent State ban?
How many other US universities made protest rallies on campus illegal?
In any case "legal" or "illegal", to shoot at demonstrating students was/still is beyond comprehension.
@Setanta,
The facts ref tear gas have been examined in depth and are not in dispute - kindly refer to link I just posted:
Quote:By Saturday, the agitated demonstrators had threatened local merchants and surrounded the on-campus barracks of the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), setting the building on fire. When firemen attempted to extinguish the blaze, the rioters punctured or cut open their water hoses. National Guard troops again cleared the campus. The hostility intensified on Sunday, when the crowd failed to disperse on orders to do so. The Ohio Riot Act was read to them and tear gas was fired. The hostile rioters regrouped and moved into town, where the Riot Act was again read to them and tear gas was again used. Several persons, including guardsmen, were injured.
By noon on Monday, May 4, approximately 2,000 demonstrators gathered and were ordered to disperse. They responded with curses and rocks. Eventually, tear gas was again employed but was ineffectual in the afternoon breeze. As the crowd grew more agitated, it was herded by guardsmen toward an athletic practice field surrounded by fence. After being pelted with rocks, the guardsmen receded but were followed by angry demonstrators, some as close as 20 yards. Guardsmen turned and fired several shots toward the demonstrators......
@msolga,
msolga wrote:
High Seas, students all over the world protested about the Vietnam war on their campuses & on the streets (along with ordinary citizens).
What was the reason for the Kent State ban?
How many other US universities made protest rallies on campus illegal?
In any case "legal" or "illegal", to shoot at demonstrating students was/still is beyond comprehension.
That 's ridiculous! If thay r
throwing rocks
at the National Guard, then thay deserve to get shot by the National Guard. Obvious.
If thay r being
peaceful, then thay deserve to be left alone.
David
@High Seas,
Always the jackass, HS . . . if there is no dispute, then tell that to David, who was the clown claiming there were no gas masks.
The legal whitewash of the event leaves me unimpressed. Plenty of protesters threw rocks in Chicago in 1968, and despite the brutality of which the Chicago police were accused, they didn't seem to need to resort to lethal force to deal with the situation. The "Days of Rage" march in Chicago in 1969 involved thousands of demonstrators and included incidents of rock-throwing and the wanton destruction of property. The police did not resort to lethal force.
I'm not surprised that a shill for conservative hysteria like you defends these shootings, though.
@msolga,
If you read through the linked article you'll see the tragic escalation of events - if the term "Riot Act" isn't clear to you it's just a US law that means pretty much what it says. And for demonstrations anywhere you actually need a permit; the university had specifically banned all demonstrations and repeatedly ordered students to disperse. Finally, throwing stones at armed soldiers, setting fire to buildings, and assaulting firemen trying to put out the fire, have got to be illegal everywhere. I think I've addressed all your questions.
Let us take notice of the fact that these rioters
were defending the communists in Cambodia, whom thay wished protected.
I wonder how it woud be received if some rioters
acted similarly in 1944, when, shall we say, Austria was invaded??
Woud that be OK?
David
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:....
I'm not surprised that a shill for conservative hysteria like you defends these shootings, though.
I'm defending the FACTS: they exist somewhere in the realm beyond your very own"shills" and "hysteria". It's sad you're so deluded.
@OmSigDAVID,
What a warped mentality. They were protesting the expansion of the war (an undeclared war) into Cambodia--
because it meant that more Americans and more innocent civilians would die, and because Nixon acted without prior congressional approval. I'm not surprised that considerations like that escape your notice.
