The National Guard did nothing wrong

They suffer for their sins, the heathonous demagouges. Just a writhing mass of insects trying to worm its way into power. Through cannibalism of their fellow citizens. Academia needs to be cleansed every now and then, it's happening right now.

If someone, who is entirely nonviolent and personally does nothing violent, is killed while in a protest that has elsewhere been violent, is it that person's fault?

>anti war movement is slowly becoming the american viet cong
Of course OP, Vietnam was only this: | | close to conquering the US, it was only the brave pigs murdering protesters that stopped them

way to not even try to justify your position.

Kent State wasnt My Lai. It wasnt soldiers indiscriminantly killing civilians, it was soldiers killing an out of control mob of students who had already proved they had no issues with unprovoked acts of violence against the government and would mostly be unfazed by the deaths of their own until a faculty member had to beg them to stop.

Americans shooting each other is nothing out of ordinary

You don't seem to understand the purpose of the national guard
From a pragmatic point of view it was a retarded decision to fire, and it cause even more protests

One of the deaths wasn't even part of the protest.

>teehee the left in America wasn't violent
>literally post the symbol of the one lefty group famous for terrorism at the time
Why?

...

which is why I pointed out that the protesters needlesley antagonizing the national guard were endangering the lives of other students.

>arson
>words
Arson is an action, words are not. I don't really care how pedantic it sounds.

Retarded maybe, but evil, absolutely not.
America doesn't have a force that's actually meant to destroy problem groups like the students, as normal countries do, but those little faggots had it coming.

That's absolutely terrible logic.

not an argument.

The national guard wasnt in the courtyard to start violence, the students were.

Antagonizing a military force isn't something you'd consider to be potentially dangerous?

They undeniably made a bad decision from really any point of view. If the choice is between damage to government buildings and the deaths of completely innocent third parties, I know where I stand.

The national guard wasn't there to shoot at them. State peace keeping forces have to be always much, much more conservative with their use of force.
It's dangerous, but they made the wrong decision.

The more i learn about Americans the more i realize what barbarous, warmongering subhumans they are.

>Shooting protestors is fine if some of them are violent
Why don't you like communism again?

>some
participating in a riot makes you violent

And walking to class makes you violent as well?

>War is bad
enjoy that imperialist bayonet charge into your country's leaders when the snow begins to fall

>i was just walking to class
there were orders from the federal government to not be outside while under martial law. They ignored it and suffered for it. Also, they got shot for being treasounous. Just look at all those worms that survived that era, traitourous whores like baby-boomers, doves, and feminists. They all should hang.

Guess those chinks at Tianamen deserved it too, and the ones in Czechslovakia who supported the reforms, and every single student in Hungary in 1956. So again, why do you oppose communism when you fully support actions taken by communist governments?

Sure but I can hardly blame them and truly say that they were 100% in the wrong.
These guys arent much older, and probably were the same age as the student protesters and since they knew just how violent these kids could get they were probably scared shitless once the mob started moving toward them.
It'd be one thing if the national guard shot up a civil rights rally and used black panther violence to justify it, that would be retarded.
But shooting the kent state protesters, who had already proved to be violent, and most certainly were escalating the protest, was as i see it an act of mercy. If the national guard didnt shoot when they did and instead waited, the death toll would have been much higher.

violently protesting an overtly repressive and authoritarian regime is not even remoteley comparable to violently protesting a democratic government, which isnt doing a god damn thing to actively harm you.

>why do you oppose communism when you fully support actions taken by communist governments?
All governments/states work for God. So i support them up to a point. But the ideology itself is impious. Which is why their followers get killed wherever they go. It is the will of God, and the Law for them to suffer unto death. Some upon the rocks.

There is undeniably a level of professionalism that someone given the legal power to kill has to be expected to maintain, which the guard undeniably failed that day.

The fucking rioters were shouting about killing somebody after gunfire went off in their own crowd.

What the fuck are the guardsmen supposed to do? "Oh well it was just a few gunshots, and I mean what if some absolute retard is walking by and isn't involved in the riot? I'd feel pretty DUMB if I shot that retard."

>professionalism
people get the level of service they deserve. And besides, all is art.

but its not fair to expect that college students wont try to fucking kill you for being associated with the government?

They can make a retreat and let the protest burn itself out. Are innocent lives worth more than buildings?

That's not how public service is supposed to work.
College students aren't endowed by the state with the ability to kill legally. There's a fundamental imbalance between the two

>reapetedly
good effort kid

>That's not how public service is supposed to work.
you have wool pulled over your eyes. People all dream of an ideal world, but the real world is purely logical. What can you make from a bowl of clay, compared to a bowl of gold? something thats inferior. Hence, the soldiers made from their generation are what they deserve. That is the form of public service.

I know it's not how it works in reality, but it's the standard to which it is held legally.

It doesnt fucking matter.
The National Guard was reacting to a situation that was very nearly out of control. The reaction wasnt perfect but I find it extremely difficult to believe that this was possible. These types of protests dont just burn themselves out. Keep in mind that one of the reasons the protesters were getting so riled up was literally just because the national guard was there to prevent them from burning whatever they wanted should they choose to try.
When you are dealing with a mob so hell bent on opposing you no matter what you do, options run out very quickly and snap decisions need to be made.

So with shots being fired by students, and students making death threats before, during and after gunfire came from within their own crowd, the right thing to do is "let it burn out"?

Why?

I've seen police successfully retreat from violent protests before. I ask you again, is an innocent life worth less than buildings?

Because it has a lower chance of resulting in death?

I mean if that's the right way to react then wtf is even the point of having armed forces? Just let mobs run around shooting people and burning shit because they want your country to lose a war?

They should have arrived much earlier and prevented the crowd from forming in the first place.

So better the students kill people than you kill people, is what you're saying?

It's purely counterfactual and can't be verified one way or the other.

>Kent State wasn't bad because lefties
Veeky Forums was a mistake

Was the least violent of all organization

this board is like a virtual reality training camp
they bring up bizarre indefensible concepts just to see what it would take to be able to argue for it

There is no fucking counterfactual, you retard! The students had pistol fire go off in their crowd immediately before the National Guard decided to open fire, and were making death threats! Is gunfire accompanying a death threat really not reason enough to consider there to be a deadly threat in your world?

Or is this just because the students were communists that you've decided they're innocent cherubs that must be allowed to do whatever they want?

And furthermore, I do think setting fire to government buildings ought to get you shot if you're caught in the act. Fuck that noise. Plus it was 1970 so shooting criminals was still fine if they remained combative or tried to flea the scene of the crime.
The National Guard literally did nothing wrong

There is absolutely no reason to believe that students would not cause the deaths of other students if the national guard had allowed them to continue acting the way they were.

>Greenwich village bombing
>Pentagon bombing
>declaring the intent to violently overthrow the government
You're a mongoloid

I love it when facebook tourists come across this place and absolutely refuse to engage in any discussion beyond smugly spouting out non arguements

>There is no fucking counterfactual, you retard!
Calm down, being angry will do nothing for you.
>Is gunfire accompanying a death threat really not reason enough to consider there to be a deadly threat in your world?
It is, and there certainly was a threat. The management of the entire situation had been subpar. I'm not saying that the Guard shouldn't have taken action, but that they executed that action poorly.
> Or is this just because the students were communists that you've decided they're innocent cherubs that must be allowed to do whatever they want?
No, and I'm not a communist. Please, calm down.
>And furthermore, I do think setting fire to government buildings ought to get you shot if you're caught in the act
And if you're entirely unconnected to the act?

All of that was done without the intention of killing anyone. Literally passive aggressive terrorism.

>Hey guys, we are gonna bomb this place so can you like leave before that happens. That would be great. Also stop wars and stuff

That's an incredibly gray area that, like I said, can't really be determined.

Nah, bro, firing pistols and shouting your intent to kill somebody is basically just performance art, you're a sociopath if you think somebody should be stopped from doing that.

>blow up a building
>without the intention of killing anyone
Are you just shitposting or actually this stupid

>literally said so many times they didn't want anyone to die
>warned people before they did anything
Stop being retarded and read some history

If someone will try to kill you, why should you care about not harming them?
If a mob advances on an armed soldier, and the soldiers shots end up hitting an innocent, would that not be the mobs fault for spooking the soldier?
You can't expect someone to lie down and let themselves be harmed, it goes against the survival programming in the majority of animals.

Just like the IRA, just less competent.

>entirely unconnected
But the one student you are talking about was connected.
True he was initially there only to observe, but after multiple orders to disperse which he ignored, at that point he was connected.
not really a gray area. The past two days saw violent clashes and even death threats to local business owners who didnt vocally support the protesters.They were already violent and attacking and threatening people with absolutely no provacation, so if the national guard pulled out there is no reason to believe this behavior wouldnt continue.

>if you're entirely unconnected to the act
Then you are unfortunate collateral damage, but desu rubbernecking at a flaming riot is the behaviour of silly persons

>Hey user, get out of your house before my buddy lights it on fire. If you get harmed in the process its your fault because I warned you.
Are you lacking in functionality?

I'm talking about Sandra Scheuer, who was walking from class to class
I don't deny that there would have still been violent clashes, but you can't claim that those would have certainly resulted in deaths.

>literally declare war on the government
>this somehow means they dont want anyone to die
Where the fuck are you getting this bullshit?

Then, as we have different fundamental views on the culpability of bystanders, there's no real reason to continue discussing.

>According to Mark Rudd, the plan was to set them off that evening at a dance for noncommissioned officers and their dates at the Fort Dix, New Jersey Army base, to "bring the [Vietnam] war home".

Mmm, fair enough.

Your weaponized stupidity is not an argument. They avoided casualties as much as possible by going out their to warn people of their bombing. There are far more violent organization than the WU

Shots had already been fired and death threats had already been made.
The students made good on their threat to burn the ROTC building down, so its pretty clear they are willing to follow through.

I mean for fucks sake even the people who were there admit that the professors pleading with the students saved their lives because that crowd was 100% willing to kill and escalate the riot.

...

So you think the nat guard should have aimed better?

They had burnt a building, but killing someone is on a different level. I'm not saying it wasn't possible, but that we can't say for certain.

so the days of rage where they indiscrimantely charged around a city destroying and attacking as much property and people as they could was "avoiding casualties"?

That would have been a much better move on their part, from a pragmatic viewpoint

It is a different level but if these students were able to escalate from sit ins to arson in a matter of a day, then its at least reasonable to claim that they undeniably planned to escalate.
Murder very easily fits into their plans to escalate considering the numerous death threats and increasingly violent activity.
Just saying "we dont know for sure if they were going to follow through on their threats to murder people" doesnt really persuade me to believe the National Guards actions were as abhorrently evil as people say.

I'm not arguing they were abhorrently evil. Please, try to keep what I specifically am arguing separate from what the general public believes

Oh so we are suddenly not talking about bombings but organized riots? Even not considering this was before Weatherman went underground, none of these acts meant for anyone to die. Days of rage wasn't terrorism but a riot.

>MUH AMERICANS AMIRITE
/int/ misses you

>>burning down buildings, assaulting national guardsmen, and generally rioting is good stuff
honest question, did they kill anyone?

the day before the riots two guys were shot to death by blacks and they were wearing army uniforms.

Commies will always tell you that intentions matter more than the action which is honestly hilarious. So Stalin murder millions of people but it's still somehow better than Hitler because at least he wasn't racist, or some shit.

>firing a few rounds to disperse a riot
What a nice way of saying shooting into the crowd. Not as if they shot at the air

they're rioters and murderers trying to kill soldiers who cares

>isnt doing a god damn thing to actively harm you
*shoots into crowd of protestors*

Yes. Although I've seen no one here with the balls to defend ISIS (actually quite easy to defend). I don't personally because I think it's illegal where I live. To clarify: not a supporter. They'd execute me like the best of em if I ended up in their clutches. Not a Muslim either. But it wouldn't be that hard to shill for, on a purely hypothetical level.

>assault police officers
>send death threats to government officials
>destroy public property and assault more officers
>burn down ROTC building
OH MY GOD THEY SHOT AT US OH THE HORROR WE DIDNT DO ANYTHING WRONG

I refuse to engage in discussion in threads like these because most replies are usually just trying to justify shitty and horrendous acts

You don't have to come from Facebook to think these threads are garbage and intentionally provocative for all those sweet (you)s

kinda seems like you cant defend your position

You sound like the case of complete faggot who would defend Leonard Peltier and that nigger in Philly who killed a cop too.

Don't tempt me nigga.
I will say that I pointed out on Reddit the hypocrisy of calling ISIS evil for blowing up the children of people who voted to blow up the children of ISIS.