New Audio Tape Reveals Order to Fire On Kent State Protesters

Originally posted by Stormrider
When you are holding a loaded weapon and fire in the general direction of other human beings you better be prepared for the possibility if not the certainty that you are ging to injure someone.

I agree. I believe those guardsmen should have thus been prepared for that reality as well. However it doesn't negate the fact that soldiers did not aim and intend to shoot 'innocent' people as they are falsely accused of.

The photographs showing the line of men down on a knee with their troops behind them as well, is often used when telling this tragic tale, as if these boys were on their knees like a firing squad, and as sharpshooters, took aim and purposefully shot 4 innocent people and wounded 9 others, when in fact, they were retreating back up Blanket Hill and turned and fired random shots to keep the crowd dispersing and to protect themselves from the 1000's of students who had led them down to the practice field and were turning on them, throwing rocks and threatening them.

Originally posted by StormriderListen to yourself: "intimidate the masses from further revolutionary violence and destruction"; sounds like something right out of Mao's little red book.

I hear myself loud and clear, and you have a right to your opinion of what my words sound like to you, however don't twist their meaning just to suit your bias please. I am not even remotely wanting to support a police state, or martial law, indeed, I fear the very thought.

Nor do I support dictatorship or communism, but I do believe this tragedy of Kent State is not to be hung soley upon the heads of the Guardsmen, and if I was at risk of being harmed by angry mobs indiscriminately perpetuating violence and destruction, or had I the duty of protecting others from them, yes, I'd want to be able to intimidate the violent mobs from further action. I'm not saying I'd want to kill them, but like I've said, I believe the guardsmen were trying to intimidate, and I do think Kent State is a tragedy.

Originally posted by Stormrider
The Chinese had the same idea in 1989 during the Tiananmen Square demonstrations. I quess those Kent State kids should really count themselves blessed that the Ohio National Guard didn't think to deploy any tanks to the campus that day.

Yep, I guess so.

Originally posted by St Udio
That is Exactly what the case against the guardsmen was about....
they said under oath--- no order was spoken---no order was heard---

Somebody, as in a company of guardsmen lied!
the court system was circumvented....along the lines of the Polices' 'Blue Wall' of silence!

Oh, for goodness sake, calm down. Please. You have no proof of such.

First of all, none of that has been remotely substantiated.

Secondly, there are many possibilities here. In preparing for May 4th, and the possible violence that could be repreated and escalated from previous days, it could have been that some of boys in the troop themselves, or it may very well have been ordered by a commanding officer, that when faced with the known previously violent protestors, if they felt they were mortally in danger, or in danger of being physically overcome, after verbal warnings, tear gas etc, if the crowd continued to pursue them, then shooting their guns over or above the crowd would be only a last resort to deter the actions of the protestors.

On May 4th, an order to shoot may have been shouted by anyone, but it doesn't mean it was heard by everyone, or that it was an official order. The shooting could have been reactionary to one person shouting to shoot, but the majority of Gurdsmen only following the actions of the few that heard that order, never hearing it themselves.

So if someone lied, or even if a couple guys did, about hearing an order, it doesn't mean the entire company did. Many could have thought the opening shots indicated an iminent mortal threat, and in fear turned to fire into the air like their comrades to ward off the masses.

It could have been a misunderstanding even. Someone trying to intimidate the protestors by shouting out mock orders, and a few soldiers taking it as an actual order, and the others following suit.

Originally posted by St Udio
it matters not if some of the conscienscious guardsmen aimed away from harming targeted (Unarmed) demonstrators.

To you perhaps it does not matter. However, it matters to me that the majority of the 65 shots did no harm and shows that while trying to show force, they were not aiming directly at anyone or intending to shoot or kill anyone. Some I am sure shot in panic reacting to the shots of other and thus may have been more careless with their aim, and unintentionally may have been the ones to would and kill.

Originally posted by St Udio
The point of the Law was to determine whom was responsible for the carnage.

It was a bad scene. The protestors were in the wrong, the Guard made poor choices by fear or order, which resulted in unfortunate casualities. People acted violently, and were inadvertantly acted upon violently. Its a shame.

If they want to pin it on one individual or a few in the Guard, and find him or them soley responsible for closure on the subject, then so be it if they have the facts and proof. It doesn't change the tragedy.

Originally posted by St Udio
with a slight experience of human nature, its not hard to figure out that the guardsmen were more aligned with the "America- Right or Wrong"-'Love-it-or Leave-it" mentality, and dutifully like 'Pavolvian dogs',
faithfully followed the command given them...

An Anti-War military isn't much a good defense nor is a successful military made of rogue soldiers.

Pavlov's dog was not commanded to eat nor or salivate, he was environmentally conditioned as proven by his biological and behavioral reaction.

These men, were serving their country, had been told what these anti-authoritarian, anti-law enforcement, anti-government and anti-military protestors had done and were capapble of doing, had seen the fire, the interfering of emergency fire services, had felt the rocks thrown and heard the threats, and when push came to shove, they reacted as trained, perhaps by folowing order, but they didn't react out of mindless, subconscious desire for fulfillment as Pavlov's dog.

I do not think they took sadistic pleasure in the shootings even if they were of the mindset 'America-Love it or leave it'. Perhaps one rogue, even the one to give the false command, or if there was a valid comand, the one to actually shoot to kill instead of to aim away from the protestors, but certainly not the entire company.


[edit on 4-5-2007 by 2l82sk8]

Don't know if it's just my internet connection or what , but every link to hear the audio in this thread and another thread, (www.abovetopsecret.com...), were saying "the page requested was unavailable."

Is this just my internet connection?

[edit to add]

OOOppps!

Didn't realize this thread was 2 years old!!!!

[edit on 8/11/2009 by Keyhole]

reply to post by Stormrider


4 dead in ohio...


Yep. It's part of our State history in Ohio now.

reply to post by Stormrider



None of your links seem to work. I would be very leary of any "newly discovered" tape. It seems dubious that everyone else would have missed this on other recordings.

There is a term for what happened at Kent State, it is "fustercluck". Military troops, with few exceptions, are trained and equipped to kill people and break things. They are not trained to be police and should not be used that way. The fault for Kent State lies solely with the protestors, plain and simple. If this was the peaceful demonstration that is being claimed, then why was the building on fire? As far as what you see on the news, I think we all know now that you can't believe it.

If you want to have an investigation, why doesn't somebody look up that KGB officer who claimed that his job was to finance radical organizations in the US at that time? I think it was 92 or 93 that he started to tell what happened, but the MSM shut him up. I have read several books about that time (I was born in 1965) and one thing seemed to be consistant. There are several people who claimed that everything was peaceful until a few people started the violence. Once it started then mob mentality took over. It is entirely possible, in my opinion, that there could well have been a core of "agent provocateurs" involved. This KGB officer claimed that it was his job to train and finance these type of people. It could have been one of these who's voice you hear yelling "FIRE!".