Gould 0738 wrote:


Oh, Christ!!!
Some things cannot be left unchallenged.
Aplogies in advance to all:

Oh yeah, the krause doggie is back.

-- Charlie

John Smith wrote:
You are correct, my use of the word surround was inaccurate. They were
facing them.

Yep, "facing them" from at least 100 yards away.


... Do you think the guardsman were not aware that the students
had attacked the fireman for trying to put out the fire the students had
started? I know that would scare the hell out of me.

Possibly, but that had been several days before. AFAIK none of the
firemen were hurt. Meanwhile, the Guardsmen had been clubbing and
bayoneting the students for two days.


It was a scary situation for most of the guardsman, and most of the students
at Kent State.

Much scarier for the students, doncha think?


I have never said the Guardsman were justified in firing their guns, I said
it was done by young kids (who enlisted into the National Guard as a way to
get out going to Viet Nam).

Sure. So in a way, they agreed with the students.


If you believe the National Guard fired on the students because they
disagreed with the students position on the war, and decided to murder them,
there is not much for me to say.

Somebody either gave the order to fire when there was no threat, or
simply started pulling the trigger and others followed suit. When you
shoot at people for no reason, that's murder. I do not think it was
because of the students position on the war, I think it was the whole
situation... the inflammatory rhetoric of "law & order" politicians, the
hatred of hippies and of priviledged college kids, etc etc.


My guess is everyone involved in this tragedy have nightmares about it

It's possible that many (most) of the protestors, and a few of the
Guardsmen, do indeed. But IMHO at least a couple of the Guardsmen were
glad to get away with it.

Who gave the order to fire on unarmed students, who were dispersing, and
were over 100 yards away? Who pulled the first trigger?

Your position seems to be that the killing of the students (and two of
the dead were not even protestors, remember) is fully justified and
warrantable. So, by inference, you think it's OK for Americans to shoot
other Americans over disagreements about politics. Is that right?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..


Sure. So in a way, they agreed with the students.

I think this topic is so emotional that it makes it hard for people to read.
Where did I stated the killing of students was either justified or
warrented. I stated it was a tragedy. I stated that the troups "freaked
out". American's have the right to peaceful protest. and even if protestors
are acting in a threatening way towards the police, they do not have the
right to shot into a crowd. That said, there were many leaders of the
antiwar movement who believed the end justifies the means and whatever they
could do to bring the war home to Middle America was justified. The burning
of the ROTC building was designed to make their protest front page news
across America. Unfortunatly, once the protest went beyond being a peaceful
demonstration mob mentality took over, on both on the sides. If you have
ever seen a mob at work, it is a very scary situation.

My guess is the vast majority of the guardsmen completly agreed with the
Student Protest for America to get out of Vietnam. Most Americans and most
politicans felt that we should get out of Vietnam as quckly as possible. A
week before Kent State, Nixon stated he was withdrawing an additional
150,000 troups by the end of year.







If you believe the National Guard fired on the students because they
disagreed with the students position on the war, and decided to murder
them,
there is not much for me to say.

Somebody either gave the order to fire when there was no threat, or
simply started pulling the trigger and others followed suit. When you
shoot at people for no reason, that's murder. I do not think it was
because of the students position on the war, I think it was the whole
situation... the inflammatory rhetoric of "law & order" politicians, the
hatred of hippies and of priviledged college kids, etc etc.


My guess is everyone involved in this tragedy have nightmares about it

It's possible that many (most) of the protestors, and a few of the
Guardsmen, do indeed. But IMHO at least a couple of the Guardsmen were
glad to get away with it.

Who gave the order to fire on unarmed students, who were dispersing, and
were over 100 yards away? Who pulled the first trigger?

Your position seems to be that the killing of the students (and two of
the dead were not even protestors, remember) is fully justified and
warrantable. So, by inference, you think it's OK for Americans to shoot
other Americans over disagreements about politics. Is that right?

DSK

John Smith wrote:
I think this topic is so emotional that it makes it hard for people to read.

That may the case for many people.

Where did I stated the killing of students was either justified or
warrented.

When you repeated the falsehood that the Guardsmen were surrounded, and
then later when you said that they were threatened, faced with angry
yelling protestors, and probably very scared... all that implies that
you think the shooting was justified.

... I stated it was a tragedy.

Agreed.

... I stated that the troups "freaked
out".

Well, there's lots of ways to "freak out"... buying 1968 VW and painting
it neon swirls, going to Tibet and hanging around ancient monasteries,
growing strangely barbered facial hair, etc etc. These are not
necessarily good, shooting people dead is a very very bad way to "freak
out." One that can easily be considered murder.


... American's have the right to peaceful protest.

Sure. Although the US gov't has less and less tolerance for it as time
goes by. Nowadays you have to go to an authorized "protest area" and
sign a waiver. Isn't freedom wonderful?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote:
I think this topic is so emotional that it makes it hard for people to
read.

That may the case for many people.

Where did I stated the killing of students was either justified or
warrented.

When you repeated the falsehood that the Guardsmen were surrounded, and
then later when you said that they were threatened, faced with angry
yelling protestors, and probably very scared... all that implies that
you think the shooting was justified.

... I stated it was a tragedy.

Agreed.

... I stated that the troups "freaked
out".

Well, there's lots of ways to "freak out"... buying 1968 VW and painting
it neon swirls, going to Tibet and hanging around ancient monasteries,
growing strangely barbered facial hair, etc etc. These are not
necessarily good, shooting people dead is a very very bad way to "freak
out." One that can easily be considered murder.


... American's have the right to peaceful protest.

Sure. Although the US gov't has less and less tolerance for it as time
goes by. Nowadays you have to go to an authorized "protest area" and
sign a waiver. Isn't freedom wonderful?

DSK


Many of us know the following quote, by the Rev. Martin Niemöller:

"When they came for the communists, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
communist. When they came for the Jews, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Jew. When they came for the Catholics. I didn't speak up because I was a
Protestant. Then they came for me... and there was no one left to speak up."

and recent events have spawned a new version, without attribution:

"When they came for the 4th amendment, I kept silent because I am not a drug
user. When they came for the 5th and amendment, I kept silent because I am
innocent. When they came for the 2nd amendment, I kept silent because I do
not own a gun. When they took the 1st amendment, I could no longer speak
out."

I wish I could take credit for this quote, but in fact I found it when
looking for the one by Martin Niemöller

Oh yeah, the krause doggie is back.

-- Charlie

Chuck you, Farlie

LOL, very good Gould

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Oh yeah, the krause doggie is back.

-- Charlie

Chuck you, Farlie

Gould 0738 wrote:

Oh yeah, the krause doggie is back.

-- Charlie

Chuck you, Farlie

I knew you couldn't stay away you self righteous hypocrite.

-- Charlie

On 23 Apr 2004 01:50:03 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

No apologies necessary. Harry needs all the help he can get now. His
credibility
seems to have taken a big hit.

John H

I'm not standing up for Harry. He makes his own bed here, and enjoys the abuse.

I'm protesting the vile, hateful, inaccurate misrepresentation of a tragic
incident.
Most National Guardsmen would have never shot into a crowd of protestors, but
some did. Trying after all these years to characterize the tragedy as a case of
the Guardsmen acting in self defense is pure
BS.

Hell, even the NIXON administration concluded the shootings were "inexcusable".
Is Nixon suddenly too liberal for our politically conservative sect?


And I'm not disagreeing with your comments!

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

I knew you couldn't stay away you self righteous hypocrite.

-- Charlie



There's a difference between avoiding the political threads and turning a deaf
ear to
absolutely outrageous, slanderous, vicious lies. My absence from political
threads doesn't mean you could post "Gould's wife is a cheap crack whore, so
vote for Bush!"
without some response.

Chuck you once again, Farlie. You can go back to obsessing about Krause now.