Historical
See other Historical Articles
Title: 48 Years Ago Today, US Troops Massacred Students in Ohio, Covered It Up and Got Away With It
Source:
Free Thought Project
URL Source: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/4 ... nts-in-ohio-and-covered-it-up/
Published: May 4, 2018
Author: Matt Agorist
Post Date: 2018-05-04 19:27:47 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 3622
Comments: 21
On May 4, 1970, members of the Ohio National Guard descended on the campus of Kent State University in Ohio to quash and antiwar protest. During the protest, soldiers opened fire on an unarmed group of students—firing 67 rounds in 13 seconds—killing four and injuring nine others. To this date, not a single person has been held accountable and the government still refuses to admit that it participated in the murder of its own citizens. As the Free Thought Project reported in 2016, Kent State is the one school shooting that the US government wants you to forget. It has been 48 years since that day and there has yet to be a credible and impartial investigation into the massacre. Also, no group or individual has faced a single consequence for opening fire on innocent students and killing them. Although eight of the National Guardsmen who opened fire that day were indicted by a grand jury, all of their charges were eventually dismissed. The families of the victims were given $15,000, a statement of regret, and essentially told to get on with their lives. For decades after the killings, the US government did their best to cover up the shooting. As an in depth explanation from Counter Punch points out, “the US government took complete control of the narrative in the press and ensuing lawsuits. Over the next ten years, authorities claimed there had not been a command-to-fire at Kent State, that the ONG had been under attack, and that their gunfire had been prompted by the “sound of sniper fire.” Instead of investigating Kent State, the American leadership obstructed justice, obscured accountability, tampered with evidence, and buried the truth. The result of these efforts has been a very complicated government cover-up that has remained intact for more than forty years.” Not until 2010, after undeniable forensic evidence was dug up by independent and private researchers did the real truth of that day begin to surface. Aurel Krause and Emily Kunstler founded the Kent State Truth Tribunal (KSTT), which helped to expose the sheer lies fed to the American public about what really happened that fateful day. In spite of this overwhelming and indisputable evidence, in 2012, the US government, once again, refused to reopen the case. However, the truth still came out. A crucial piece of the conspiracy was apparently uncovered in 2010 that played a pivotal role in exposing the crimes of the US government. Audio recordings were analyzed and subsequently found to record the Guardsmen being given orders to murder the protesters. The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported on this revelation in 2010: “Guard!” says a male voice on the recording, which two forensic audio experts enhanced and evaluated at the request of The Plain Dealer. Several seconds pass. Then, “All right, prepare to fire!” “Get down!” someone shouts urgently, presumably in the crowd. Finally, “Guard! . . . ” followed two seconds later by a long, booming volley of gunshots. The entire spoken sequence lasts 17 seconds. According to the reports, the review was done by Stuart Allen and Tom Owen, two nationally respected forensic audio experts with decades of experience working with government and law enforcement agencies and private clients to decipher recorded information. Despite the troops’ claims of protesters throwing rocks at them, the shots were fired from 60 feet away. What’s more, as Allen and Owen point out, there is no audio indicating that the troops who opened fire were getting hit with rocks. There is undeniable evidence, however, that the US government killed innocent civilians for protesting war and yet still, no one was held accountable and the government refuses to acknowledge it. As Krause explains, “Kent State remains a glaring example of government impunity, it sends a message that protestors can be killed by the state for expressing their political beliefs. This lack of accountability and hostility towards peaceful expression flies in the face not only of our Constitution, but also our international human rights commitments.” Indeed, the idea that one’s government can kill them for peaceful protest is chilling, which is why the establishment wants you to forget about it. Below is a video of what oppression looks like. Americans would do well to remember this did not take place in some tyrannical other country, but right in their own backyard.
Despite overwhelming evidence of US troops being given orders to open fire on peaceful antiwar protesters at Kent State, not a single person has ever been held accountable.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
"MASSACRED"?????? That boy is a drama queen,ain't he? What was it,5 people killed by National Guard (not even US TROOPS) out of thousands of protesters,and it was a "massacre"????
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
That boy is a drama queen,ain't he? Easy, Dicktard has an AGENDA to fuel. Can’t fuel shit without drama, agitate propaganda or FEAR. DICKTARD likes a three. lol
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I think it is more of a case of him and others like him,just "being the ones in the "know" that understand the secrets the rest of us are unaware of."
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
You are getting authoritative, recorded and documented HISTORY all mixed upped with personal perspective. There was no objective reason for the use of US military force that later created student bloodshed on a US college campus during an otherwise peaceful demonstration.
There was no objective reason for the use of US military force that later created student bloodshed on a US college campus during an otherwise peaceful demonstration. And you are just confused. They were National Guard troops brought in by the Governor,and they were brought in to quell the riots promised by the leftist protesters,who were prone to burning down public buildings and shooting at cops. "Otherwise peaceful demonstration" is pure HorseHilary.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
I didn't state the military force was from a federal directive, did I? So, why are you making that an issue?
That WAS the point, dipshit... so you and Dicktard can STFU. Move on, there is nothing here. The proof was when inner city potatoes rioted in St. Louis, after the Rodney King Trial and after Trump won POTUS... and we did NOTHING. My republic (one you defected from) should utilize the Guard more often... send a message to the potatoes, ANTIFA and anarchist... fuck you.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
So, you agree that military force can be used at any time for imaginary considerations? Does this same perspective include local law enforcement to murder in the color of law and then cover up that same crime?
A massacre is a killing, typically of multiple victims, considered morally unacceptable, especially when perpetrated by a group of political actors against defenseless victims. The word is a loan of a French term for "butchery" or "carnage".
What you stated is below,and both were lies. "US troops being given orders to open fire " They weren't US troops because they were NG troops under the command of the Governor of Ohio,and nobody ordered them to fire. They opened fire after being attached by some of your "innocent protesters" that were doing stuff like throwing bricks at them. The protesters are damn fortunate it was the Ohio NG they were facing,which was primarily manned by 18 to 20 year olds hoping to avoid the draft instead of professional soldiers who knew how to shoot. Yet you want to imply the federal government ordered them to open fire on "peaceful,innocent protesters who were otherwise occupied doing stuff like saving kittens,kissing butterflies,etc,etc,etc.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Riots are imaginary considerations"???? Never been in or around a riot,have you? WHY is it that YOU think Governors control the NG units in their state?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Nice try,but no prize. The term "Massacre" means MUCH more than "multiple victims". It implies wholesale murders of pretty much everyone in opposition. MOST of the NG guys fired into the air or there would have been a hell of a lot more people killed than there were. In FACT,IIRC,all the ones that were killed were innocent students walking past in the distance that were hit by accident because the NG wasn't aiming at any of the protesters. They were panicked and just firing wild to try to get them to go away.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
An inetesting perspective on the matter: _______________________________________________ I read his article on August 14, 1996. This date is important because on August 10 and 11th my National Guard unit had an unscheduled drill. The purpose of the drill was to issue and fit riot gear, conduct precombat inspections, and train the soldiers in my unit in riot control formations and tactics. The mayor of the city of San Diego had requested the state governor be prepared to deploy National Guard troops in support the City of San Diego Police in case of a major civil disturbance. I have done duty at 'civil disturbances,' I have also been in combat. As far as I am concerned, I would rather be in combat. In combat you are facing people whom you can strike back at, and are generally playing by the same rules as you are. This is not the situation in a 'civil disturbance.' During the riot control training my soldiers would ask me what to do in several different situations (for example: someone spits on them, throws blood/paint, etc. on them, pushes them, throws things at them, etc.). They were shocked at my answer: "You stand there and take it." I also gave them a class in mob psychology. In this class I explained how people in mobs act and react. I also explained to them that people in a mob are acting on an emotional not intellectual level, and that they do not see people in uniform as human beings. Because they dehumanized their opponents they have no real moral barriers to killing. I also explained the Rules Of Engagement, and advised them that, if they were pulled into the crowd they were to disregard the ROE and do whatever it took to rejoin their unit and stay alive. This is not to say that my soldiers will use lethal force in any situation which they are not in imminent danger of death or serious harm. I am confident that my soldiers will retain their discipline, and use only that amount of force appropriate to the situation. Now what was the situation at Kent State? The soldiers were tired, poorly trained, and under a great amount of stress. Nor were they equipped appropriately for their mission. These were not uniformed robots, these were human beings. If somebody insults you will become angry; if your friend is injured; you will become angry. These soldiers knew that the crowd before them did not regard them as human beings. They were untrained, frustrated, angry, and afraid. Add a loaded M1 semiautomatic rifle to this mix and you have a guaranteed tragedy. For days these soldiers were using up their store of discipline facing the rioters. And right before the soldiers passed around the corner of a large building, the discipline ran out. Without that discipline they stopped being soldiers. What they were now was a mob just like those they faced. Only worse -- they were a frustrated, angry, and tired mob with loaded weapons. All it took was one person to lose control, and the rest would follow his example. We will probably never know who fired the first shot, in all likelihood the person who fired it does not know he fired the first shot. Four people died. I am surprised that it was only four. Other Comments: As someone who has "not been injured worse than a minor bruise" by a rioter, I ask this question: Was that not an attack? What if I had been hit in the head? Why does it seem that there is an attitude that injury to someone in uniform hurt less than a similar injury to a civilian? Covering of nametapes. I instructed all of my people to cover their helmet bands in order to hide their names. This was done, not in an attempt to avoid punishment for illegal behavior, but to protect those soldiers from possible retribution after they had returned home. Remember, our opponents do not see us as people. Punishment of the Guardsmen: What would that prove? You push someone beyond his limits, then punish him for reacting? Were not the people who organized the riot, and planned and directed the attacks on the guardsmen equally responsible? Harassment of protesters: I have been harassed, attacked and injured by 'peace demonstrators.' I have been hit by a brick (the media called it a 'peaceful demonstration' as none of the rioters were injured). I have had someone pour a mixture of cow blood and red paint on me, then (with a video camera carefully placed so that what the 'peace demonstrator' did to me would not show) say "hit me." Fortunately, I retained enough discipline to turn around and march off (for a second I came very close to drawing my riot baton and granting his request). I did not know about the camera until later. For some reason, the demonstrators have a dual standard. What they do is always justified, but they expect their opponents to always behave. Condoning of killing: This statement is grossly unfair. The killings at Kent State resulted in wide ranging policy changes about how the military responds to civil disturbances. Rules of Engagement are now carefully thought out, published, and taught to every soldier. A new doctrinal manual, Field Manual 19-15 'Civil Disturbance,' was published. The army acquired specialized riot control gear, and trained soldiers in its use. The use of the bayoneted rifle has been replaced (in situations where armed opposition is not expected) by the riot baton. Studies have been conducted in crowd psychology as well as the psychological response by soldiers when placed in these situations. It was accepted that soldiers on riot control duty had either be relieved and rested at regular intervals, or (if that was not possible) allowed to 'burn off' frustration and anger through the carefully controlled application of force against their opponents (if it is okay for the soldiers to get 'minor injuries' then their opponents should expect the same treatment). I do not expect many of you to agree, or to even like what I have said here. What I do ask is that you try to put yourself in the position and situation of those you criticize.
Look, you are full of shit attempting to draw a fine line; it is a worthless detail.
Those people were assholes. They should have have all been summarily executed as enemy combatants.
One of the funniest "ANYBODY could have told you this was a bad idea" moments when I was in the army was when some bonehead either at the Pentagram or with power to give those in the Pentagram orders decided the PERFECT unit to deal with protesters in 1968's (IIRC) upcoming "Days of Rage" riots in DC was the US Army Special Forces units at Ft.Bragg. I started laughing hysterically when I heard what was planned,which was one SF group would play the role of the rioters/protesters,and another SF Group was to play the role of riot control troops. What could possibly have gone wrong with a clever plan like that? Well,long story short,they had to call it off after the first day resulted in a couple of SF officers visiting the basic training area at Bragg at the time and talking the basic trainees into rioting to "show the man they aren't mindless slaves". Barracks were burned to the ground,MP cars overturned and set on fire,etc,etc,etc. IIRC,the army pretty much had to give honorable discharges to all the trainees arrested for rioting because they were following the orders/suggestions of serving officers. Totally disrupted a whole basic training cycle that had to be rescheduled. Beyond that,guess what happens when a SF MSG or SGM that has been in infantry combat in WW-2,The Korean War,and a couple of side trips to VN gets hit in the face by a dog turd while counting cadence behind the "V" line of SF NCO's playing the role of riot control. Yeah,they were all carrying blanks in their weapons,but there were still several SF soldiers hospitalized that day due to suffering bayonet wounds from their fellow SF soldiers from another group. I was one of the ones lucky enough to sit it out for some reason,so I was only an observer. I laughed so much my ribs hurt. That HAD to have been the most fun I ever had at Bragg. Day 2 of riot control training never happened. The DC Pentagram observers went back to DC with their tails between their legs,and that was the last anyone ever heard about using SF for riot control. IIRC,they turned it over to the 82nd and 101st Abn Divisions,who were also pretty damn aggressive when attacked,but were mostly populated by young men from 18 to 22 that could be more easily controlled than senior NCO's and junior (O1 to 03) officers. What did these boneheads expect when they tell professional combat soldiers to "make the training real"? BTW,I did participate in riot control training while in the 1st on Okinawa a couple of times. The communists in the labor unions that loaded and unloaded the ships at the port in Naha would go on strike about once a year as an excuse to not load ships carrying supplies to VN. Okie was under the control of whatever General sat in the big chair at Sukiran,so the problem was always handled by sending soldiers and Marines to the port and have them load and unload the ships. Being inexperienced they were slower than the pros,but the ships were still getting loaded and unloaded,and were still going back to VN. This made the commies in the labor unions mad,and they would go on strike and threaten to burn down army and marine bases,etc,etc,etc. My job was to put on civilian clothes and ride my motorcycle around in the areas where the riots were taking place and make reports on the situations at various sites. The rioters got out of control one time I know of,and had announced they were going to attack a army base and destroy it,and were reported to be marching in that direction. Normally the Okinawan cops and Army MP's handled these problems,but when they got out of control the islands Governor,the General,would order the 1st out to stop the rioters,"STOP" being the operative word. Unlike most riot control troops,these guys had live ammo,and would not hesitate an instant to take someone down that was waving a Molotov Cocktail or some other weapon and threatening them. If you make a threat or a threatening move towards any of them,you WOULD get hurt. The rioters seemed to know that from earlier riots,and every time the trucks loaded with SF guys showed up,everybody just went home. Don't forget,when the commies were talking about burning Ft.Buckner and other US areas to the ground,they were talking about burning down the houses where their wives and children lived. BIG TIME Bozo No-No. You threaten people's wives and children,you ARE going to get hurt. It was mostly fun for me,though. I didn't have to suit up to fight anybody. I just rode around on my bike reporting on what I was seeing and having fun watching stuff happen.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Yeah,an uncomfortable and inconvenient truth is always a worthless detail,huh?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Yeah, the fascist government of the USA is exposed no matter how you or me pose the BULLSHIT.
Calling you a clueless fool is bragging on you.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
If you don't see the writing on the wall there is little purpose to further discuss this or any other topic with you. Goodbye.
What I see is an obvious lie to try to pull in people emotionally to support a bullbush statement. You are trying to gain support by PURPOSELY telling a lie you KNOW to be a lie,and the left is trying to pull people in emotionally by purposely telling lies THEY KNOW to be lies. Good company you have there,bubba/
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
48 Years Ago Today, US Troops Massacred Students in Ohio
#2. To: sneakypete (#1)
MASSACRED"??????
#3. To: GrandIsland (#2)
Easy, Dicktard has an AGENDA to fuel.
#4. To: sneakypete, Deckard, GrandIsland (#3)
I think it is more of a case of him and others like him ...
#5. To: buckeroo (#4)
(Edited)
You are getting authoritative, recorded and documented HISTORY all mixed upped with personal perspective.
#6. To: sneakypete (#5)
#7. To: buckeroo (#6)
I didn't state the military force was from a federal directive...
#8. To: GrandIsland (#7)
#9. To: sneakypete, GrandIsdland, buckeroo (#1)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#10. To: buckeroo (#6)
I didn't state the military force was from a federal directive, did I? So, why are you making that an issue?
#11. To: buckeroo (#8)
So, you agree that military force can be used at any time for imaginary considerations?
#12. To: Deckard (#9)
(Edited)
A massacre is a killing, typically of multiple victims, considered morally unacceptable, especially when perpetrated by a group of political actors against defenseless victims. The word is a loan of a French term for "butchery" or "carnage".
#13. To: sneakypete (#11)
#14. To: sneakypete (#10)
#15. To: buckeroo (#14)
#16. To: no gnu taxes (#13)
#17. To: buckeroo (#14)
Look, you are full of shit attempting to draw a fine line; it is a worthless detail.
#18. To: sneakypete (#17)
Yeah,an uncomfortable and inconvenient truth is always a worthless detail,huh?
#19. To: buckeroo (#18)
Yeah, the fascist government of the USA is exposed
#20. To: sneakypete (#19)
#21. To: buckeroo (#20)
(Edited)
If you don't see the writing on the wall there is little purpose to further discuss this or any other topic with you.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]