It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Syracuse Woman Spits In Soldier's Face

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
The OP made the statement that the spitting ...

happened to our soldiers when they returned from Viet Nam

Yes. When they returned. When they were back in the US. Not when they were on the tarmac. Only the narrowest, incorrect interpretation of what I said could come up with that. It shows that you're really grasping at straws to maintain your position.

Stop using this to derail the topic. I don't care if you think it was an urban legend. People have given you cases, which you reject. I think this is your way of suppporting the woman who spit on the soldier in the airport. You're using it as a proxy.




posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR

Why would you automatically think that the story was a hoax.


i don't automatically assume anything, i'm merely asking you to understand the power conveyed to anyone who's willing to use it by believing as fact what you have no first hand experience of.

this question has been asked before: why did the woman ask for ft drum?



Secondly, why would you think that the 'people' are going to lynch this woman or are premeditating to hurt her.


do you know why people in the show& media biz tend to use aliases? because they have experience.

exposing somebody like that is in effect a form of attack, administered without a trial, without the right to defend yourself - come to think of it you don't have any rights at all. you seemingly equate this with anti-war radicalism. had the victim been without uniform we would most likely not have heard anything about the incident, i'll leave it to you if there is any objective difference.



Occams Razor my friend. Occams Razor.


giving away personal information makes a person vulnerable, it does not matter what this particular woman deserves, it's about the power of random press people and others to unleash the 'animals' at someone of their choosing. it has happened before far too often so this is not hyperbole, the stuff you wrote, take an unbiased look at



Yes. She does deserve her address being anounced publicly, and her ridicule. In fact it's the right, just thing to do. See we're a species of animal and like all other species of animal, if a member of the group is doing all they can wether they're aware of it or not, to comprimise the safety of their species then they are ostrisized, and culled out for they do no service to the species and infact their agenda is counter productive to the species. In fact, most species will attempt to kill this individuel.


don't tell me i can't read, imagine you were on the receiving end of such a statement, rightly or not. spitting in the face -> advocating death, where do you think you're living? i don't care if you can see what i mean or not, let's just say this kind of discussion reminds me to regularly practice a certain skill....



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Actually you didn't get what I wrote. I was saying that what happened to her was no suprise. It's basic psycology, for all animals living together in a group. I never advocated killing her. I said that her behavior would have likely gotten her killed in the non-human animal world. But being human she got lucky that all she got was ridicule and an arrest record. A little different than from what you are implying. What I was doing was explaining why the population reacted the way they did to her behavior.

She was convicted of a crime, arrested. She was guilty. Why do you think that there were alternative reasons for the publication of her arrest and why she was arrested.

I don't think they were attacking her anymore than when a pedifile is on public record. Was it unusual that somebody put her address in the newspaper. Yes, frankly. I agree with you there. Did they do it to hurt her emotionally or ridicule her, probably. Does she deserve it, unless she was off her medication or just escaped from a mental ward, then yes.

Should physical harm come to her, of course not. Is she a scumbag for spitting on anybody...yes.

Are people going to stalk her and try and rape her like she was some hot looking celebrity, with fame, money, and a movie carrer. Probably not. Unless there is money to be made in hurting her I don't think that it would be likely.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 06:15 AM
link   
...whenever the military or military symbols are involved, nowadays, only the most extreme attitudes count.

care to explain how you got from 'someone got spit in the face' to

if a member of the group is doing all they can wether they're aware of it or not, to comprimise the safety of their species then they are ostrisized, and culled out for they do no service to the species and infact their agenda is counter productive to the species. In fact, most species will attempt to kill this individuel.


?

how does spitting someone in the face for reasons we can only guess 'compromise the safety of the species' ? who determines the agenda that has to be behind what she did? who determines it's a bannable offense to have such an alledged agenda ? is the agenda more important than the actual crime and if so, wouldn't that constitute a thought crime?

do you understand how slippery the slope, you're arguing on, is?



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
I understand what my angle of repose is on this slippery slope. And I understand that although it's not a pretty stance it is the one humans generally operate on psycologicaly. I wish we were different and some of us are(more power to them cause as a species we need these people), but I still have to be concious of the reality of the situation which is the peoples actions are sub-conciously guided by animalistic survival wireing deep in our brains.

Shure, That man is viewed by the masses as protecting the population. Thats how the general masses see it. To attack that person is to attack the people he is protecting. Because of this the population will naturaly ostrisize or shun away the offensive and now counter productive (to their safety) individuel. It doesn't matter wether her actions actually did comprimise their safety. it was that she was attacking something that protects their safety, not that the attack was succesful. As much as the population generaly dislikes cops. We also generally get pissed if we see a criminal shooting at one of them.

Who cares why someone attacked another person. It's concidered reckless, dangerous, behavior that is unaceptable to the masses. Normaly physically attacking another person will get you arrested. But, attacking the population in which you live in's symbol of protection (soldier) will get you bumped into the more dangerous catagory in the subconcious of the masses. She is then not only arrested but shuned by the same people who feel she has betrayed them.

The masses ultimatly set the agenda. We're a social species. Wether or not the masses are being manipulated to feel oneway or another regarding any issue is another story altogether.

Her actions not her thoughts caused this. There is no thought crime involved. And real life isn't a tom cruise movie with telepathic mindreading/future seeing police. People can think whatever they want to themselves. but the reality is that if your belief goes against the current zitgeist you will see a backlash for your behavior. Typical herd like mentality of social species.

Is it the mature thing to do for an advancing race to act against people who think differently. Probably not. it should be tolerated, by advanced species. Humans are probably somewhere in their teens with their maturity level on the long scale of overall psycological maturity for our species. Some tolerate it, some don't.

However, does the situation change to intolerance for any psycologiacly mature species once the individuels thought become destabilizing actions against the current zitgeist? I think so. At this point the group has one option with two choices. With unbias look at the merits of what the other person is trying to achieve. Decide if they warrent tolerence, or take action to curb or thwart the behavior.

In this instance the population decided on the later. It was the principle behind it not the severity of her actions (although spitting on a soldier who protects you is usually concidered pretty abbhorant to people) that got her such ridicule and potential harrasment.

If you think what I'm saying is harsh then take a look at nature. Most other animals other than humans show even less sympathy for individuels who do this sort of behavior. They are usually physically attacked, luckly for her humans usually don't go that primal.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Spitting is considered an assualt. I hope that she get the maximun sentance for her unprovoked assualt on a soldier.

People in the US think that they have the rights to do anything that they want to do. They forget that those rights have been paid for by the blood of our soldiers.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   
To add to what the last poster just said. people, but people in the US and other countries think that we have the right and freedom to do what ever we want to. In theory this is nica and all, but in reality they forget that they are still forever bound to the laws of nature and reality. You can't bite the hand that feeds for long.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 11:47 PM
link   
This is to address some of the questions brought up by Long Lance. Every one of them has already been covered here, but in the interest of saving time by having to read the whole thread, here they are:


Originally posted by Long Lance
this question has been asked before: why did the woman ask for ft drum?

As I stated before, no big mystery. It's the biggest (and maybe only) military installation in that part of NY state.



exposing somebody like that is in effect a form of attack, administered without a trial, without the right to defend yourself - come to think of it you don't have any rights at all.

It is common practice to publish names and addresses in police/fire logs. No conspiracy/malicious intent here.

If the press would have had to do some digging to get that info, on, say, a rape victim, and then published it, you might have a case. But here the woman was the offender, not the defender.


you seemingly equate this with anti-war radicalism. had the victim been without uniform we would most likely not have heard anything about the incident, i'll leave it to you if there is any objective difference.

Yes, this has been agreed that the fact she spit on a soldier and not her neighbor made the difference. So?


giving away personal information makes a person vulnerable, it does not matter what this particular woman deserves, it's about the power of random press people and others to unleash the 'animals' at someone of their choosing. it has happened before far too often so this is not hyperbole, the stuff you wrote, take an unbiased look at

Sorry, her name and address are a matter of public record. She gets her info published right along with the shoplifters and DUI's.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 11:53 PM
link   
I wanted to comment on BASSPLYR's statements about animal behavior. What he says is true, and has always fascinated me a little. Take a baby chick, for example, and paint a dot on top of it's head. The other chickens will peck at that spot until the chick is dead. Rats are another interesting species. The pack can ostracize another by merely gathering around it and chattering at it until the outsider dies.

Weird stuff, really. And we as humans aren't too far removed from that behavior in terms of evolution.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 05:28 AM
link   
one thing i find interesting, aside from those so willing to defend the actions of this woman, are those that are so positive that anyone is going to go out of their way to go to this womans house and assault her either physically, verbally or mentally.

as a former soldier and the husband of a soldier her actions offend me greatly, but would i waste my time to confront her even if she was next door to me? i doubt it.

granted, i'd LOVE to bump into the guys that beat up the kid from the presidio, but they almost killed him just for being in the army and THAT tends to raise my ire just a bit more.

bottom line is she gave up her 'rights to privacy' when she comitted a crime, and whether she used her hands, a bat, or her spit, she's still guilty of assault.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 03:33 AM
link   
I agree she should be prosecuted to the fullest, especially after this soldier apparently did not react in a worse manner. I also don't care if the News Paper gives away her address, she's scum.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Has anyone bothered to find out why this woman carried out this act, there may be a real reason why she did this so before condemming her how about getting all the facts first. Soldiers are not innocents and not in this war, they represent the industrial military complex that is killing and robbing Iraq's. And remember just as you are free to lodge your protests she is free to do so as well.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
She can lodge all the protests she wants. She can't spit on someone. It ain't complicated.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by 11Bravo
The OP made the statement that the spitting ...

happened to our soldiers when they returned from Viet Nam

Yes. When they returned. When they were back in the US. Not when they were on the tarmac. Only the narrowest, incorrect interpretation of what I said could come up with that. It shows that you're really grasping at straws to maintain your position.


I didnt choose your words, you did.
Had you said AFTER they returned I would have understood that you meant AFTER they returned.
When did it happen?
Was it WHEN they returned or AFTER they returned?
At best, you used vague words because you dont understand the signifigance of saying what you mean, and meaning what you say.
At worst, you used intentionally misleading words to suggest that there were crowds waiting at airports all across America to spit on every Vietnam Veteran upon their return.
Unbelievable of you to call my reading exactly what you wrote as 'narrow' and 'incorrect'. You wrote it, now you waffle on what you meant.



Stop using this to derail the topic.

If you dont want me posting to your threads then all I can say is maybe you shouldnt be creating them.
This is not 'derailing' since the OP contains the remark, and I quote "The same things happened to our soldiers when they returned from Viet Nam."
I asked you to provide some sort of evidence so support your claim, thus no derail. I ask a number of questions that you myth believers should ask, like WHO HOW WHERE WHEN, and the only person to even attempt to give me an answer was Jack when he conceded that it would have been impossible to happen at the airports upon their return.
Heck, rdang even states that Veterans were "changing out of their uniforms on the plane to avoid righteous crowds of protesters!
Hmmm, I wonder where he got the impression that there were crowds of protesters at airports just waiting for Vietnam Veterans when they returned?

I don't care if you think it was an urban legend.

I guess thats the difference between you and I, because I do care if my fellow Americans believe something that is not neccesarily true. I do care if people are being deceived.
All I asked for was some sort of evidence other than hear-say.

People have given you cases, which you reject.
I reject hear-say as evidence. So do the courts. As I asked you earlier, would you accept hear-say as evidence if you were skeptical of an event taking place?
Do you accept hear-say with reguards to the conspiracy of 911?

I think this is your way of suppporting the woman who spit on the soldier in the airport. You're using it as a proxy.

So now I, as a soldier, somehow support this womans actions, by asking you to provide some sort of evidence to support your claims that returning (actually meaning returned) Vietnam vets were spit on?
Your logic escapes me, and to be quite honest it looks more like you are just attempting to spin around the questions that I have posed.
(see WHO HOW WHERE WHEN)
Final Point, and this is NOT an attempt to derail this thread, because I would like my questions answered, but I must comment on this post of yours..

Take a baby chick, for example, and paint a dot on top of it's head. The other chickens will peck at that spot until the chick is dead.


That my friends, is exactly why the myth of evolution is absurd.


we as humans aren't too far removed from that behavior in terms of evolution.


Doh!

Edit for grammer
[edit on 15-12-2006 by 11Bravo]

[edit on 15-12-2006 by 11Bravo]



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I live in Syracuse and I don't recall ever hearing about this in the news. Her arrest is a matter of public record and the announcement of her address is probably reflective of that. That, and the fact that not much happens in Syracuse so they probably needed filler characters for the newspaper.

Trust me, the people in this city should be more worried about high property taxes, the ridiculous DestinyUSA project, increasing gang crime and loss of jobs than a protestor who did something that I agree is uncalled for and disgusting.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originlly posted by 11Bravo
If you dont want me posting to your threads then all I can say is maybe you shouldnt be creating them.

Reply to your hearts desire, I don't care. Just try to keep up. And stop whining about whowhatwhenwherewhy simply because it's your only argument, and you're failing at it.


So now I, as a soldier, somehow support this womans actions, by asking you to provide some sort of evidence to support your claims that returning (actually meaning returned) Vietnam vets were spit on?

I think it's pretty obvious that you intend to discredit the brave men and women who served, and the people here who have gone out of their way to placate you, by supplying you with proof. Frankly, you don't deserve that much effort, imo.

Take, for example this passage entitled "I Was Spit on When I Returned From Vietnam"

I have been lurking here for a couple of weeks and noticed the thread
yesterday about people spitting on Vietnam vets when they returned to the
United States after fighting in Vietnam.
It did happen to me as a matter of fact in Hollywood California April 1970. I
wasn't dressed in my uniform but my haircut gave me away as a Marine. Two
hippie like(unwashed hair, B.O.) guys and a girl approched me on Hollywood
Blvd. and asked me in a sarcastic way about killing women and children. I
ignored them at first but they persisted and just before walking away from me
one of the guys spit on my chest.

groups.google.com...

Now, upon reading that, do you think the author meant that the soldiers were spit upon on the tarmac? Only a fool would think that. But you want to persist in arguing that, because it's the only way you can get attention.

Well, this is the last time I'll respond to your silly argument, because I've got better things to spend my time on. If you want to argue the real points you are defending, like why you support this woman and hate the soldiers, I'll be glad to accomodate you.


Edit for grammer
[edit on 15-12-2006 by 11Bravo]

[edit on 15-12-2006 by 11Bravo]

Grammer? Is that on your mommy's side or your daddy's side? Or did you mean grammar?
Maybe you should go back and edit for spelling.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
.... stop whining about whowhatwhenwherewhy simply because it's your only argument, and you're failing at it.

Umm, those arent arguments, they are questions.
You know, the things you ask when you try to find out the truth of something. There you go spinning around like a rooster in a tornado.
I know, I will call 11Bravos questions 'arguements' and make him appear argumentative instead of inquisitive. Nice right wing tactic.
I ask the basic questions that any third grader knows to ask when attempting to get to the truth of a matter.



So now I, as a soldier, somehow support this womans actions, by asking you to provide some sort of evidence to support your claims that returning (actually meaning returned) Vietnam vets were spit on?

I think it's pretty obvious that you intend to discredit the brave men and women who served, and the people here who have gone out of their way to placate you, by supplying you with proof. Frankly, you don't deserve that much effort, imo.

More right wing tactics. Continue to avoid the questions, insist that the questions have been answered, then declare that your inferrior opponant doesnt 'deserve' to have their questions answered.



Take, for example this passage entitled "I Was Spit on When I Returned From Vietnam"

I have been lurking here for a couple of weeks and noticed the thread
yesterday about people spitting on Vietnam vets when they returned to the
United States after fighting in Vietnam.
It did happen to me as a matter of fact in Hollywood California April 1970.

groups.google.com...

Now, upon reading that, do you think the author meant that the soldiers were spit upon on the tarmac? Only a fool would think that.

No comment on rdangs 'foolish' assertion that Vets were 'changing out of their uniforms on the plane'?

But you want to persist in arguing that, because it's the only way you can get attention.

Im not arguing or getting attention, IM asking for some proof other than blog entries, proof to substantiate your claims.
So far you have supplied none, but you continue to insist that the spitting DID happen, with only blogs to back you.



Well, this is the last time I'll respond to your silly argument, because I've got better things to spend my time on.
There you go, rename the questions as 'arguments' and then state that it is beneath you to argue.

If you want to argue the real points you are defending, like why you support this woman and hate the soldiers, I'll be glad to accomodate you.
More right winger tactics. It shows how petty you actually are. Since I am clearly outwitting you by asking the most simple of questions, and you have nothing but blog entries to support you, then you resort to spinning my desire for the truth with evidence as 'support for the terrorist/hippies/scum' and 'hate for soldiers/America/God'. What a despicable tactic. How low can you go to compare curiosity with 'hate'?



Edit for grammer
[edit on 15-12-2006 by 11Bravo]

[edit on 15-12-2006 by 11Bravo]

Grammer? Is that on your mommy's side or your daddy's side? Or did you mean grammar?
Maybe you should go back and edit for spelling.

And finally we have the attack on my GRAMMAR, or spelling, or syntax or whatever.
This is where your true colors come out, and yet another right wing tactic.
When all else fails attack a man for his spelling.
When he has valid questions, ignore them and point out that he cant spell that well after a few beers.

How week, sad and pathetic your stance must be when all you can do is attempt to ridicule me because I dont spell everything perfectly.

Gee, I wonder if I went through all of your posts would I find your GRAMMAR and SPELLING were perfect.?

Dance on around the questions, they really dont need answered as long as you want to believe your myth, but if you ever want to start living in th e real world where facts are king, you need to remember the basic questions of WHO HOW WHEN WHERE.

I am through with you too.
You have demonstrated that you dont care to deny ignorance, you are only here to attempt to put as many Americans in a bad light as you can.


Edit to fix quotes

[edit on 16-12-2006 by 11Bravo]



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   
11b, i DO understand where u are coming from, but i have to ask what qualifies as proof to you? if i claimed it happened to me would that be proof? or would my character and integrity fall into the guilty until proven innocent? now, dont get me wrong im not claiming that it happened, hell i didnt join the army til 90. but, one of the guys in my first unit was in nam, EIB, silver star the whole bit. HE claimed it happened to him, now i realize that by now thats 3rd hand information so i can understand you'd suspect it. but i for one believe the words from his mouth.

would you believe its POSSIBLE it happened?

either way it doesnt matter, that was a generation ago and times are different. the basis of this discussion is what happened to a soldier outta drum. now, id die for anyones right to SAY they didnt like the war, but i personally didnt sign away my own rights to protect some (insert expletive here)'s rights to assualt one of our brothers.

did you?

if you answered no to that then from my perspective discussion is closed as we agree on the important part of the discussion and whether or not either of us believe that nam vets were spat upon is really jsut a matter of if we believe what we've been told. and on that one we dont have to agree.


lol of course, if you answered yes to that question, im not sure id have wanted to share a foxhole with ya...cuz you nuts



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles


would you believe its POSSIBLE it happened?

Yes, I would believe it is possible it happened.
I believe that if it DID happen, it was isolated.
The right wingers try to suggest that it happened all the time, everywhere, implying that everyone in the 'antiwar' movement is a long haired smelly hippie just waiting for a chance to spit on our soldiers. Its a misconception that is perpetuated by unsubstantiated claims that 'these things happened to VietNam Veterans when (after) they returned'.

I was assaulted while in the service (not with spit, with fists), by civilians, for no other reason then because I was in the military. Alot of the local boys dont like the fact that there are out of state boys running around thier town with money to spend. There is always a bit of tension between SOME locals and out of state military personell, for various reasons. As Wyrdeone pointed out earlier, which nobody commented on that I saw, there could be any number of reasons why this woman spit on a soldier, but the right wingers immediatly attribute her actions to being anti-war, and then try to convince us that these types of things happened all the time, and that anti-war equates with animalistic behavior of spitting on others.
I will be honest with you here too.
I assaulted (not with spit, with fists) an airman from a local base when I was 17. I was young, rowdy, and saw the Airbase as a source of competition for local women. It was nothing more than a fist-fight outside of an arcade, but the only real reason we fought was because he was in the military.
It was wrong I know, but a common conception around town was that the 'flyboys' as we called them, were mouthy ingrates running around town like they own it.
I have grown up since then, and between my own actions of fighting service members at 17 and getting jumped by 17 year olds while in the service, I have come to understand how miscnoceptions perpetuate ignorance and ignorance breeds violence.

Thanks for your rational response.
thumbs up to you for being able to discuss things.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
no problem and thank you for your well written rational reply. your stance on this whole thing makes perfect sense to me now and i can understand your point of view perfectly.

i cant say i was ever assaulted for being in the military, but we all knew it was a danger outside ft leonard wood so we always went out in groups of 5-10 lol. not many of the local boys wanted to throw down with a bunch of amped up combat engineers with more testosterone than brains lol.

also like to add that i agree with you about the possible motives and interpretations of this womans actions. no one knows WHY she did it and to assume why she did is assinine on anyones part.

props for your post



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join