Discussion in 'Politics' started by protectionist, Aug 31, 2017.
Bullshit. The Vietnam protestors threw bricks at police and the National Guard. They also occupied buildings on campus. You're lumping your thugs and criminals in with decent people who did protest non-violently.
How old are you?
I was at CAL from the fall of 1965 - fall of 1967; and the spring of 1970 until I graduated in 1971; then I attended San Francisco St. U. and in both of those experiences I saw mostly peaceful protesters, and when the police (especially the Berkeley PD) began to use tear gas to break up the demonstrations; only then did a few toss them back at the police, most moved on or stood bye and watched. Of course there were agent provocateurs and street thugs who engaged in violent behavior, something which occurs in all urban crowds, even celebrations of a professional or U. team victory.
Postscript: You don't have any personal experience, obvious by your ignorance.
while true - i also saw (keep in mind i was 5 in 1970) a bunch of "hippies" more or less screaming things like DOWN WITH THE MAN and WE WANT PEACE AND WE'LL KICK YOUR ASS TO GET IT.
at 5 years old that thought process made no sense to me. at 52, it still doesn't.
i also don't recall too many marches down main streets saying they were going to kill cops and fry them like bacon. which side does this bullshit belong to?
the left? alt-left? my guess would be no one from the left would claim these to be "their" mindset. yet these self-same people usually have zero issue finding a white supremacist and making them the poster boy for the right.
is that fair? accurate? or just emotionally correct to whoever is doing it?
the left seems to have a habit to want violence to those not them, then blame "them" for making them do it. then when someone hits back, go SEE I TOLD YOU!
and that is a problem. usually a problem with people not yet into adulthood, but sometimes the inner child carries well into adult life in these situations.
In other words, violent protesters threw rocks, bottles and bricks at the police.
New light shed on Kent State killings
The upheaval that enveloped the northeastern Ohio campus actually began three days earlier, in downtown Kent. Stirred to action by President Nixon’s expansion of U.S. military operations in Cambodia, a roving mob of earnest antiwar activists, hard-core radicals, curious students and others smashed 50 bank and store windows, looted a jewelry store and hurled bricks and bottles at police.
Four officers suffered injuries, and the mayor declared a civil emergency. Only tear gas dispersed the mob.
An exhaustive review later concluded that this unrest on the streets — the worst in Kent’s history — was “not an organized riot or a planned protest.”
But the FBI’s investigation swiftly uncovered reliable evidence that suggested otherwise. Among the strongest was a pre-dawn conversation — never before reported — between two unnamed men overheard inside a campus lounge later that night. Their discussion was witnessed by the girlfriend of a Kent State student and conveyed up the FBI chain of command 15 days later.
“We did it,” one man exulted, according to the inquiry. “We got the riot started.”
The second man expressed disappointment at being excluded from the riot’s planning. “Wait until tomorrow night,”
the leader replied excitedly. “We just got the word. We’re going to burn the ROTC building.”
This was 20 hours before the ROTC headquarters on the Kent State campus, an old wooden frame building, was, in fact, burned to the ground.
“What about the flare?” the second man asked before the leader spotted the coed listening to them and abruptly ended the conversation. Dozens of witnesses later told the FBI they saw a flare used to ignite the blaze.
Now largely forgotten, the torching of the ROTC building was the true precursor to the killings at Kent State because it triggered the deployment of the National Guard to the fevered campus.
That deployment climaxed in bloodshed on the afternoon of May 4, 1970, with the guardsmen, clad in gas masks and confronted by angry, rock-throwing students, firing their M-1 rifles 67 times in 13 seconds, killing Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, Sandra Scheuer and William Knox Schroeder.
A report submitted to Attorney General John Mitchell in June 1970 stated “there was no sniper” who could have fired at the guardsmen before the killings.
Numerous witnesses corroborated this.
A female freshman provided the FBI with a sworn statement that “there was no shot before [the guardsmen’s] volley, and there were no warning shots fired.” The Justice Department’s internal review cited statements by six guardsmen who “pointedly” told the FBI that their lives were not in danger and that “it was not a shooting situation.”
Yet the declassified FBI files show the FBI already had developed credible evidence suggesting that there was indeed a sniper and that one or more shots may have been fired at the guardsmen first.
You're not only ignorant, you're a fool.
I don't notice anyone shutting your fat yap here. All you people do is whine.
I grew up in the Sunset Dist of San Francisco, not far from the Haight-Ashbury (in fact as a child I attend the Boys Club on Page Street, one block to the north of Haight st. and a few blocks from Hippie Hill in GG Park).
During the Summer of Love (1968) I was on active duty, but there were no violent protests and the Peace Symbol (the index and middle finger spread) was a greeting even I received when on leave with my military short haircut.
Remember, Charles Manson and his tribe probably passed for hippies, and they would not have fit in with those who flocked to The City in the late 1960's; listen to the music which brought them to The Fillmore and The Haight and its all about love, peace & drugs:
Eve of Destruction
One Tin Soldier
Where have all the Flowers Gone
that's kinda my point. not everything is one or the other. not all "hippies" are out kicking ass for peace. not all hippies are "anti-fa".
not all on the right are racist assholes. it's just easy to depict them that way out of frustration usually. the entire mantra of "how dare trump say good people are on the right" (which to me is what the 'tards of the left are saying) when if you boil it down to people, not labels, trump is correct.
both sides have very good people in this issue *OVERALL*.
both sides have assholes looking for a fight.
*we* tend to bypass the good people on the other side and focus on the assholes and pretend they represent the entire *other* side.
you probably saw the same "issues" in that summer of love. it's a problem we all tend to have in stereotypes. we hate a label and then stick people in that label to keep from understanding them.
so to me, hating a hater isn't any "better" than hating to begin with. saying BUT THEY STARTED IT is a pointless "next move" to say the right has more haters so the left is justified in *their* hate.
like i said long ago, at this point hate is hate. it all needs to stop.
Separate names with a comma.