krs
|
posted on March 4, 2003 05:30:04 PM new
"The really frightening stuff began when a television cameraman stopped and asked me why I was there. As soon as the crowd saw the camera pointed at me, they went wild. I was trying to express myself and they screamed at me and over my voice. A man stood behind me making obscene gestures as I spoke.
The reporter tried three times, unsuccessfully, to get a picture without obscenity. One woman spat in my hair. The journalist gave up and moved on. The mob did not. Men and women violently screamed in my face and Bob's.
It stopped just long enough for the president's motorcade to pass by and then erupted again. We were told to " Get the f--- out of the country," had obscene gestures pushed in our faces. An elderly man told me to "Go to hell!"
I was in a state of shock. Here I was, a 42-year-old mother of four, born and raised in Cobb County, holding a peace sign, standing on the sidewalk across the street from my church, and I was frightened that my neighbors were going to hurt me because I dared to express my opinion. This could not be happening. Not in America, right?"
http://www.underreported.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=887&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
|
ebayauctionguy
|
posted on March 4, 2003 05:35:43 PM new
There's a fine line between dissent and supporting/sympathizing with the enemy.
|
antiquary
|
posted on March 4, 2003 05:37:53 PM new
Yes there is a line, and that mob of ignorant brownshirters broke it.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 4, 2003 06:01:57 PM new
How can anybody think that marching for peace is sympathizing with the enemy. Fifty seven cities and countries have passed resolutions against this war. It's not because they sympathize with Saddam.
Generals who led the Gulf War of 1991 have spoken out against this war as foolish, unnecessary and dangerous. Are they sympathizing with the enemy?
Even the CIA has contradicted the President by saying Saddam is not likely to use weapons unless he is attacked. Is the CIA sympathizing with the enemy?
This woman should have held a sign that was popular during the Vietnam-era. "War is Good for Business -- Invest Your Son"
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 4, 2003 07:14:49 PM new
From New York to Melbourne, Protest Against War on Iraq
By: Robert D. McFadden
On a freezing winter day in New York, a huge crowd, prohibited by a court order from marching, rallied within sight of the United Nations amid heavy security. They raised banners of patriotism and dissent, sounded the hymns of a broad new antiwar movement, and heard speakers denounce what they called President Bush's rush to war, while offering no sympathy for Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein.
|
Borillar
|
posted on March 4, 2003 07:28:13 PM new
>How can anybody think that marching for peace is sympathizing with the enemy.
Antiquary answered your question just above.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 4, 2003 07:40:24 PM new
Right! 
|
bear1949
|
posted on March 4, 2003 07:46:16 PM new
|
stockticker
|
posted on March 4, 2003 09:56:20 PM new
A lawyer was arrested late Monday and charged with trespassing at a public mall in the state of New York after refusing to take off a T-shirt advocating peace that he had just purchased at the mall.
Full Story
|
austbounty
|
posted on March 4, 2003 10:10:17 PM new
ebayauctionguy
"There's a fine line between dissent and supporting/sympathizing with the enemy."
(wearing a T-shirt bearing the words "Give Peace A Chance"
"I was in the food court with my son when I was confronted by two security guards and ordered to either take off the T-shirt or leave the mall,"
|
Borillar
|
posted on March 4, 2003 10:18:02 PM new
>Lawyer Arrested for Wearing a 'Peace' T-Shirt
"Downs is the director of the Albany Office of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, which investigates complaints of misconduct against judges and can admonish, censure or remove judges found to have engaged in misconduct."
Makes me think of the Salem Witch Trials where the girls accusing everyone of being "unChristian" finally pointed their fingers at the Governor's wife. 
|
antiquary
|
posted on March 4, 2003 11:26:04 PM new
Good story, Irene.
Borillar,
Wonderful irony.
The media can't ignore the student protestors any longer as the movement keeps growing.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/04/sprj.irq.college.protest/index.html
|
donny
|
posted on March 4, 2003 11:48:08 PM new
It's true, it is growing, and getting media attention, even my podunk Georgia town had one last week, a group that mostly consisted of college students and teachers marched a block from the courthouse to the campus. And the next day the local paper reported it... and called these people "peacemongers."
My sister's much smarter than I am, but even the two of us together had to puzzle on this for awhile because the usage was so peculiar. We finally decided that "monger" is always appended in a negative way, but we never did come to a conclusion on whether this was an intentional insult by the reporter or not. After all, this is the same paper that last year reported that a talk was going to be held about the "Israeli-Pakistan" conflict, so it was hard to decide if it was slant or stupidity.
|
antiquary
|
posted on March 4, 2003 11:55:20 PM new
LOL!
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on March 5, 2003 12:00:55 AM new
I'll see that LOL and raise you one!
LOLOL!
|
gravid
|
posted on March 5, 2003 12:21:37 AM new
If people protest in public they tend to show some restraint. If you drive them underground you get what Borillar has been predicting for months - rebels.
|
CBlev65252
|
posted on March 5, 2003 04:41:04 AM new
I'd like to think I can protest the war without fear of being spit on, but I know that is unlikely. I'd like to think I could protest the without fear of being shot. Lest we forget the 4 killed at Kent State protesting a war they did not believe in:
Will it come down to that?
Why must we need to repeat history in order to learn a lesson? I should be allowed to express my opinion without fear of physical harm. I listen while you (no one in particular) express your opinions of why we should go to war. I don't threaten bodily harm. Should I not expect the same from you?
I don't want to have to worry about my government thinking I'm a traitor because I cannot support all of their decisions. A government by the people and for the people? What "people" does that refer to? Only those in government and their staunch supporters or is that supposed to reference all of us? I don't know anymore. I'm beyond trying to figure anything out anymore.
For now, I will express my opinions on these boards where I am nothing but a screen name. I will silently carry my war protest with me as I head out to work or out to shop. What happens when we, as free Americans, become afraid to express our views and opinions? How free are we then?
Cheryl
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Mar 5, 2003 04:42 AM ]
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 5, 2003 05:56:22 AM new
Not everybody living in Ohio at the time, was against that shooting...
Like how people tend to forget the building burning, property damage, threats from the protestors to people of the town, and of course the rock throwing...
Gov. Rhodes was one of the best.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
[ edited by Twelvepole on Mar 5, 2003 06:53 AM ]
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 5, 2003 07:18:03 AM new
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Midwest/01/08/kent.state.shootings.ap/
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- Before National Guard troops opened fire on Vietnam War protesters at Kent State University in 1970, Gov. James Rhodes instructed the troops to "act quickly and firmly," The Columbus Dispatch reported Wednesday.
|
reamond
|
posted on March 5, 2003 07:18:55 AM new
A very small minority were against the shootings at Kent State. It did put a stop to destroying tax payer property and endangering lives in Ohio. It also turned out that most of the fire starters and trouble makers weren't even students at the university.
Gov Rhodes was much loved by Ohioians, and there is a bronze statue and building named after him in downtown Columbus Ohio.
I know of no statue or building named after the communists or arsonists at the Kent State riots. Their only memorial is the hundreds of thousands murdered by the communists in Vietnam.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 5, 2003 07:26:47 AM new
We all shed blood here
http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/lewihen.htm
Although we have attempted in this article to answer many of the most important and frequently asked questions about the May 4th shootings, our responses have sometimes been tentative because many important questions remain unanswered. It thus seems important to ask what are the most significant questions which yet remain unanswered about the May 4th events. These questions could serve as the basis for research projects by students who are interested in studying the shootings in greater detail.
(1) Who was responsible for the violence in downtown Kent and on the Kent State campus in the three days prior to May 4th? As an important part of this question, were "outside agitators" primarily responsible? Who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building?
(2) Should the Guard have been called to Kent and Kent State University? Could local law enforcement personnel have handled any situations? Were the Guard properly trained for this type of assignment?
(3) Did the Kent State University administration respond appropriately in their reactions to the demonstrations and with Ohio political officials and Guard officials?
(4) Would the shootings have been avoided if the rally had not been banned? Did the banning of the rally violate First Amendment rights?
(5) Did the Guardsmen conspire to shoot students when they huddled on the practice football field? If not, why did they fire? Were they justified in firing?
(6) Who was ultimately responsible for the events of May 4, l970?
|
snowyegret
|
posted on March 5, 2003 07:45:46 AM new
Those who would shut down free speech/open debate by name calling are acting against a vital democratic principle, thusly abetting the terrorists in their efforts to destroy the American deomocratic system.
You have the right to an informed opinion
-Harlan Ellison
|
reamond
|
posted on March 5, 2003 07:52:36 AM new
1) Who was responsible for the violence in downtown Kent and on the Kent State campus in the three days prior to May 4th? As an important part of this question, were "outside agitators" primarily responsible? Who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building?
The university had been closed. The vast majority of students had already went home. The female in the famous picture wasn't even a student, but a hanger on and drifter
(2) Should the Guard have been called to Kent and Kent State University? Could local law enforcement personnel have handled any situations? Were the Guard properly trained for this type of assignment?
The fact is that the police were not handling the situation. What training was needed to stop a riot with arsonists that was heading towards you
(3) Did the Kent State University administration respond appropriately in their reactions to the demonstrations and with Ohio political officials and Guard officials?
In hindsight the administration should have called the guard sooner, it may have prevented the arson and shooting
(4) Would the shootings have been avoided if the rally had not been banned? Did the banning of the rally violate First Amendment rights?
There is no First Amendment right to a non-peaceful rally, nor is there a First Amendment Right to a rally permit if the issuing authority has good reason to believe the rally will not be peaceful
(5) Did the Guardsmen conspire to shoot students when they huddled on the practice football field? If not, why did they fire? Were they justified in firing?
Did the rioters conspire to harm the guardsmen as they huddled on the hill before they charged down the hill towards the guardsmen
(6) Who was ultimately responsible for the events of May 4, l970?
This is the easy one- it was the arsonists and rioters that were totally at fault
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 5, 2003 08:13:37 AM new
Reamond, you need to refresh you memory by reading the article written by the Kent sociology professsors.
"On May 4, l970 members of the Ohio National Guard fired into a crowd of Kent State University demonstrators, killing four and wounding nine Kent State students".
Helen
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 5, 2003 08:25:13 AM new
Besides all of the questions that you answered incorrectly, you even got the one that you defined as "easy" wrong.
Who was ultimately responsible?...The guy who called the National Guard to a peaceful protest and instructed them to act quickly and firmly...Governor Rhodes.
The arson that you mentioned had occured the night before.
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Mar 5, 2003 08:33 AM ]
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 5, 2003 08:30:29 AM new
How many were convicted Helen?
The shooting, though tragic, was justified...
People want to throw rocks at armed personnel, I just say it was weeding out the gene pool...
If protestors put as much effort into worthy causes as they do in these Don Quixote ones, things might actually get better.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
|
reamond
|
posted on March 5, 2003 08:30:36 AM new
PEACEFUL LOL !! Did you forget they burned down the campus ROTC building ?
Helen- you must have a very strange defintiton of what a "peaceful" rally is. There is NO First Amendment right to get together and burn down government buildings.
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 5, 2003 08:31:47 AM new
Yep, most people tend to over look that Reamond and also the rock throwing....
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 5, 2003 08:38:24 AM new
The arson happened the night before. This rally started as a peaceful protest. The presence of the National Guard, escalated the protest.
|
reamond
|
posted on March 5, 2003 08:40:55 AM new
They also tend to stretch the truth to fit misguided and misinformed ideas about peace and the US constitution.
No one fired on peaceful protestors at Kent State.
The State of Ohio had every right to call in armed National Guardsmen and use deadly force when you have a mob burning down tax payer paid for buildings and thereby threateningthe lives of everyone at the campus. They were just lucky there was no one inside the building or that it didn't spread.
The rioters at Kent State crossed a line, and once crossed, you either dispearse or face the consequences. Once you cross that line, you are no longer protected by the First Amendment, nor are you protected from the use of deadly force.
Continuing to riot on campus and refusing to dispearse will get you shot in any disaster area, and after the arson and a closing of the campus, that is exactly what Kent State was.
If there had been a tornado and there was a group of people going through the disaster area after being warned to leave and they started stealing and setting fires, they could be shot and deserve to be shot.
Kent State offered no moral difference to a pack of arsonists and thugs roaming a disaster area.
|
