Fairford peace activists found guilty.

This makes it sound like you wouldn’t mind watching several hundred people die so that you could make a point against peace activists….

WTG dude.

Nic

Maybe he wouldn’t but I don’t mind seeing Darwin in action.

Phantom II,

I think the Kent State thing is an aside, illustrating how both protests and responses from officialdom can both get out of hand.

If anyone wants to expolre the relationship between protest and responses to it, can I sugest reading ‘My Experiments with Truth,’ by Mahatma Ghandi.

Steve.

Perhaps I truly am the arrogant, uneducated, and downright naive American that kev thinks I am, but can someone please explain to me again the Kent State thing as it applies to this particular instance?

I’m not sure why I have to answer for the Kent State incident…….

I dont condone any forms of terrorism, never have never will. There are ways and means of getting across your point, in order to do so you remain within the law. Whichever way you look at it they broke the law of the land, and agreed using not exactly the most intelligent methods, by then risking the lives of the aircrew, goundcrew and many civillians in the surrounding areas. Lets be honest here, we all know basics about B52’s and a fully loaded one going bang over a large area of population is a really scary thought. As far as Im concerned, they deserve everything they got, theyre bl00dy lucky they didnt get shot and at the end of the day, they only have themselves to blame.

DJJ, I thought youre original comment was hilarious, I wish I could think up humourous comments like that, and if anyone thinks otherwise, well they need a sense of humour transplant.

tbyguy, your statement “My contention is that if you throw objects (or congregate by those who do) at arms-bearing authorities, it is quite probable you may be fired upon.” is totally spot on, it happens throughout the world, in most cases it then causes outcry, but then what happened to common sense?

Kenbo I have never had cause to disagree with you and found your posts humourous and enlightening, however, I wouldnt use someones use of English Language & Grammar as a basis on which to assume someones educational background. I reckon there might be a surprise or two, I for one though Ive got a right nasty riddle for the answer!!!

Bex

Wow….I make one little remark and look what I created…..

Feel the power!!! :diablo:

But imagine how boring life would be if everyone agreed with one another all of the time….. 😎

Wow….I make one little remark and look what I created…..

Momentary Moderation

…..The idea that my posting in some way aspires to the loss of several hundred lives to make a point against peace activists is specious and gratutiously offensive. As I respect SOC’s injunction to keep personal invective off the board, I’ll leave this posting here…..

I don’t consider that any reasonable person could look at your (rather witty, IMHO) posting and conclude that was your intention, DJJ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJJ View Post
“So, members of the jury, my client’s case is clear. He was preventing an illegal act of war – and preventing such acts is a perfectly legitimate thing for a citizen to do. It was an unintended and tragic consequence that his successful efforts to uphold international law led to the B-52 falling out of the sky on take off, killing several hundred people….”

This makes it sound like you wouldn’t mind watching several hundred people die so that you could make a point against peace activists….

WTG dude.

Nic

I was tempted not to dignify such an accusation with a reply, but I will.

The word I’m searching for to describe your view bears a close resemblance to the OED definition for ‘neutered male cattle’.

The point, for clarity, is that the line between legitimate direct action and illegitimate direct action in support of peace protest is a fine one. The potentially huge consequences of certain forms of action (i.e. FODding a B-52 with the unintended consequences of large numbers of fatalities on the ground) might in fact serve to delegitimise protest – protest is not a consequence-free ‘game’ where anything goes to make the point, not when the consequences of an action might be utter disaster.

I consider some (but not all) of the peace protesters naive in the extreme, but I equally believe they have the absolute right to make their point. The sole caveat is that they should consider the possible consequences of their action, otherwise they – or their barrister – would be left attempting to defend the indefensible.

The idea that my posting in some way aspires to the loss of several hundred lives to make a point against peace activists is specious and gratutiously offensive. As I respect SOC’s injunction to keep personal invective off the board, I’ll leave this posting here. 😡

tbyguy.

Interesting comparison with almost frightening parallels. The ‘rioting’ was allegedly conducted, at least in part, by a number of biker gangs and a large number of non student youths who used the campus bars. Also interesting to note that on the two days previous to the shooting, one student had been bayonetted each day. The circumstances regarding these actions are not made clear.

Is it not also true that Governor Groves intimated that martial law had been declared when in truth he never applied for martial law to be introduced? I take your point that you are likely to be fired upon, but isn’t it somewhat ironic that one of the victims who was nothing to do with the protest or the rioting happened to be an ROTC member?

Was the rioting a result of the National Guard being called in or were the Guard called in as a result of the rioting? Would there have been any rioting had the protest not been allowed to continue without interference from the authorities and perhaps more importantly, why was the campus not closed and lectures cancelled on that Monday?

The point still stands. A peaceful protest was about to be staged. The authorities decided they did not want the protest and isn’t that when it all escalated? Either way, four Americans died at the hands of those who are sworn to defend them.

Interesting anyway.

Regards,

kev35

Is she a GP, if so, I think I’d run a mile and change doctors if she had to examine me privates, or anything else for that matter.
Sorry, just trying to lighten up this thread, interesting though, I’ll leave it to Kev to be contraversial, I’m not in the mood, I’m trying to design wheelchair ramps into a shop without offending Herts Highways department.

Therefore my contention is that, on at least one occasion in American history, a protest didn’t put people in jail, it put them in their coffins.

The episode reminds me of at least another in American history: The shooting deaths of American protesters by British troops.

An event on March 5, 1770, is referred to in American history books as “The Boston Massacre”. Assembled British troops claimed self-defense, and yet, several unarmed protesters were killed, including at least one individual–who was a considerable distance away–by a ricocheting bullet.

The similarity goes further: Neither of the protesting groups was doing so peacefully. In Boston, the British troops were facing a steady barrage of rocks and ice chunks. At Kent State, the reason the National Guardsmen were sent was to attempt to calm down several days worth of rioting throughout the community. Police, firefighters, and guardsmen were under repeated attacks–both in the community and on the Kent State campus–by protesters hurling rocks and bottles. The campus ROTC building was hit by arsonists.

Should British troops have opened fire on innocent, rock-throwing demonstrators? Should National Guardsmen have opened fire on innocent, rock-throwing demonstrators? Both groups bearing arms were placed into a very difficult and stressful situation.

My contention is that if you throw objects (or congregate by those who do) at arms-bearing authorities, it is quite probable you may be fired upon.

Massacres? Hardly.

Well, these guys weren’t really attacked… It was rather the opposite.

The real nonsensical thing I can see here is that some people were fighting for peace. How contradictory is that ?

Isen’t those who are forced to take arms when facing offensive measures from others? Eg. Country A attacks to country B, isen’t the mens from country B fighting to keep a peace? You could always nitpick that don’t fight but is occupation really a peace:confused: :confused:

Anyway that doesen’t matter in this case becouse those peace-activist were hardly “fighting”. But in generally hats of to them, its always glorious to oppose against imperialistic warmongering:dev2:

The real nonsensical thing I can see here is that some people were fighting for peace. How contradictory is that ?

J. Boyle.

Firstly, an apology. I think I may have misunderstood the manner in which some of my comments would have been taken.

“Certainly, I’d would not compare him to a member of the UK or US armed forces. To do so would insult their memory…which I refuse to do whether it be someone like Guy Gibson, or someone we’ve never heard of who didn’t survive the war.”

I agree entirely with your comment. What I was actually trying to say was that in the mindset of those who would be prepared to commit suicide for their beliefs, they believe they are in the right, and therefore there is no difference between them and UK or US soldiers fighting for the ‘perceived’ right. I certainly had no intention of disrespecting UK or US servicemen and women, past or present.

Regarding Cooper, I fail to see anything humorous in two people arrested for trying to interfere with military operations.

SEan.

Now to my comments regarding Kent State. PII posted the following….

“On another note, I must add that I never directly said a protest would do any good, and it would likely have the same affect as the outcome of the path they ended up choosing (i.e. not having any impact on B-52 operations), but at the same time at least a protest wouldn’t have put them in jail.”

That is clearly utter nonsense. On Monday May4th, 1970, a group of National Guardsmen opened fire on students at Kent State, killing four and wounding nine others.Two of those killed were not even involved in the protest but were shot as they moved from one class to another. Only one National Guardsman during the whole of that day received an injury requiring medical treatment and that was 15 minutes prior to the shootings. The National Guardsmen stated that they were in fear of their lives but this is somewhat contradicted by the fact that of the thirteen people shot that day, only two were within 69 metres of the Guardsmen, while at least one was over 200 metres away.

Therefore my contention is that, on at least one occasion in American history, a protest didn’t put people in jail, it put them in their coffins.

Regards,

kev35

What was a personal attack?

I merely commented on the arrogance of a man who was arrogant enough to laugh at other people’s beliefs. You have people from the Indian sub continent threatening all sorts to each other and I am warned because I suggest that someone is displaying an arrogant attitude?

Beggars belief really.

Regards,

kev35

Kettle-Black-Pot or was it, saucepan-jug-yellow summat like that, i cant remember, Kev maybe you can can help me out with that one your grasp of the english language, skill with grammar and perfect punctuation should have it worked out in seconds, reading your posts i guess you probably went to Eaton or Harrow, not like the rest of us chumps… i do sympathise with you though Kev… i mean, how far does one have too stoop to get on another’s level…?

The point remains that they have the courage of their convictions, in that respect are they any different to a servicemen operating in the service of their Country? Don’t misunderstand me, they are in the wrong, but they at least had the courage to be proactive about their beliefs.
kev35

To follow your example….
A guy wearing a bomb to blow himself (and others) up on a London bus also has “courage of convictions”…but he’s still in the wrong and won’t be praised by me for having “the courage to be proactive about their beliefs”.
(The same could be said about Hitler, Stalin, or any genocidal killer).
Certainly, I’d would not compare him to a member of the UK or US armed forces. To do so would insult their memory…which I refuse to do whether it be someone like Guy Gibson, or someone we’ve never heard of who didn’t survive the war.

BTW:
I think you’re far to harsh about Phantom II.

He has proven himself many times to be a very elequent and rational member of this forum. He goes out of his way to express his views in a way that does not insult others.
He is certainly not deserving of the anger and insults heaped upon him by a few here who base their opinions of him on his nationality and profession rather than by what he writes.

[color=red]Since this seems to be more of a political than military thread, I’m moving it to General Discussion. Feel free to continue over there.[/color]

The point I was making to Cooper, though Lord knows he’ll never see it, is that I was criticising him for ridiculing them.

He’s stated twice already that he was ridiculing their methods, not their beliefs. What else are you looking for?

And I didn’t quite get your point regarding Kent State, if you rephrase the question or comment I’ll be happy to reply.

J Boyle.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. If they were caught on base occasioning criminal damage they should be punished. And I think that in today’s climate, had someone been spotted on a UK airfield this past week the outcome might well have been that we were waiting on two coroner’s inquests, and rightly so.

The point I was making to Cooper, though Lord knows he’ll never see it, is that I was criticising him for ridiculing them. They may be wrong, misguided or just plain stupid. The point remains that they have the courage of their convictions, in that respect are they any different to a servicemen operating in the service of their Country? Don’t misunderstand me, they are in the wrong, but they at least had the courage to be proactive about their beliefs.

And no-one from across the Atlantic has yet responded to my comments re Kent State.

Regards,

kev35

Kev,
No one said they don’t have a right to protest.
It may be pointless, illegal and foolish, (the mission will go on) but they have a right..(unlike some other countries a few seem to worship on this forum).
What they don’t have a right to do is sabotage military equipment or endanger lives.

BTW: I was at a demonstration outside a SAC base and the protestors were so busy mugging for the TV cameras they didn’t notice one of their kikds they brought along as a prop wandered out onto the highway.
The child was pulled to safety by a military security policeman.