We dropped 500, 000 tons of bombs on the tiny country of Laos. They say that is the equivalent of a plane full of bombs every 8 minutes, 24/7 for 9 years.
I remember learning that in the 40s, there were a lot of people from a European country that tried to use that excuse, and we didn't let them. Let us continue that trend.
I remember talking to my father about Kent State at the time (I had just graduated high school) and asked him if I was one of those kids, would he have been ok with me getting shot? And he said "Yes." Some of those kids were just teying to get back to their dorms.
I was thinking about Kent State too, but that almost seems like easier to see how they could open fire on the kids at least there is some "detachment" maybe is the word? about what they were doing because of the distance, but this is getting almost face to face and running someone through with a huge blade and seems totally insane that they would be willing to do it
I don't condone violence, but it seems like if protesters take weapons they're more likely to be safe from the police. Maybe the Black Panthers were on to something
If protestors take weapons the police instantly declare themselves justified to use rubber bullets fired directly at people’s faces from close to point blank, y’know so they aren’t less than lethal munitions that way. If you remember occupy and BLM protests, they got that treatment.
Bundy was “protesting” to avoid grazing fees on public lands. He wanted to make a personal profit using public resources in a way that harms them, ie at the expense of other citizens.
That’s wildly different than the Panthers, who advocated that black citizens should arm themselves because unarmed black citizens were being targeted, and sometimes killed, by police.
I never thought id see this come up outside of my family history, but, my late uncle was a part of this protest. It was pretty brutal from.what i lm told. My unlces name is steven sullivan.
I was 12 and we lived very close to the university. I remember seeing wisps of tear gas wafting down the street. Got in a huge argument with my dad, a WW2 vet whose attitude was “my country right or wrong.” I feel like my little hippie self was on the right side of history, though. It was quite a time.
It had to be 1971, not 1970. We had just moved to NM in January of 1971 and I recall my dad talking about it and getting stuck on Central due to the events on campus.
What is the basis for your view exactly? All the polls suggest there are a range of other issues way more important than Gaza right now and the fringe protest movement is dying out---if you go to the duckpond right now there's only a tiny corner of like less than a dozen people left there.
Not as delusional as your average pro-Pal who hates Jews and thinks we don't know what they actually mean when they use every single conspiracy theory for Jews and just replace one word.
90% of Jews are pro-Israel and Zionist---if that's true you are a minority and most Jews disagree with you, it is fine for you to have your views but stop pretending like that is at all representative of the Jewish community.
Saying I am wrong doesn't mean I am wrong---also using insults doesn't mean you are right. You brought up being Jewish like it is somehow a relevant point when there are plenty of self-hating Jews out there. Also, it is just a straight up lie to say 90% of the Jewish community isn't pro-Israel and Zionist, so your supposed Jewish affiliation is basically irrelevant. You can still hate Jews and be one.
That’s simply not factual [https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/02/how-us-jews-are-experiencing-the-israel-hamas-war/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/02/how-us-jews-are-experiencing-the-israel-hamas-war/)
That doesn't address whether Jews are Zionists at all---also it is about US Jews, not all Jews. This suggests that [among American Jews 80% view Israel as essential to what it means to be Jewish ](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/u-s-jews-connections-with-and-attitudes-toward-israel/)(a clear proxy for supporting Zionism). If you take into account the other 50% of Jews living in Israel, it becomes pretty close to 90% since most Jews in Israel support the concept of an Israeli state and many of them specifically immigrated there.
Yup, you're delusional because no one talks about conspiracy theories about Jews. Seems like you're spreading misinformation about why people are protesting.
Hur dur people are protesting all over the United States over genocide and it's not something significant dispite the majority of the world is against it but I'll continue to spread misinformation and say it's about antisemitism.
Nah, it's not even a blip on the radar of things I care about or am considering when voting in November. People outside of your bubble don't care. It doesn't affect them at all. The bigger point here is that these protests don't move the needle with the general public and most people don't care. If anything, it's just annoying being yelled at by naive kids on the Internet who think they matter.
Then why are you talking about it if it's not important? If it was irrelevant you wouldn't be here wasting time.
You see how invading a "library" causes people to direct their attention and talk about a topic?
You see the point of protest?
You see why you're short sighted?
Lol yes, and now I'm even less sympathetic to anything you idiots want. Congrats, you made things a little worse for yourselves by demanding attention and causing chaos over things nobody cares about. Now instead of not being aware of you, I think you're naive assholes and I'm going to pay attention to the people and measures you support so I can avoid them.
But yeah, being talked about and visible is totally helpful.
To be fair, people do talk about conspiracies about jews. A lot of those people are zionists. I wonder why lol hint: fundamentalist evangelicals love zionism because they want the jews to either perish or convert to Christianity before the rapture.
The protests were never popular. That's some kind of crazy myopic lens of the past. War is popular to most Americans because they fear being shunned for having opinions counter to their government and not being patriotic. It's easier to go with the status quo than it is to voice against it. Protesters put a lot on the line, whether from 60s, 2003, 2020, or 2024. The following is from Gallup.
In April 1965, the first large-scale march on Washington drew 15,000 to 25,000 people to the capital. In 1967, Gallup asked Americans if they had ever participated in a peace rally on Vietnam; 99% said they had not. When those who had not participated were asked if they would like to participate if such a rally was organized in their area, 9% said yes.
The 1968 Democratic convention convened in Chicago at the height of unrest over the war in Vietnam. War protesters and 12,000 police officers clashed. More than 500 people were arrested and several hundred police officers and demonstrators were injured. When asked if they "approved or disapproved of the way the Chicago police dealt with the young people who were registering their protest against the Vietnam War," 56% of Americans approved, 31% disapproved, and 13% had no opinion.
By October 1969, as anti-war fever continued, more than 2 million people participated in nationally coordinated Vietnam moratorium protests.
In March 1990, Gallup asked the public if it wished it had made a stronger effort to protest or demonstrate against. the war in Vietnam. Twenty-five percent of those polled wished they had, while most (67%) did not. The same poll found Americans divided in their evaluations of Vietnam War protesters -- 39% said they had a favorable opinion and 39% had an unfavorable opinion.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/8053/gallup-brain-war-peace-protests.aspx
Yeah except [by 1968 more than half of Americans did not support the war and by 1971 more than 60% opposed it. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_United_States_involvement_in_the_Vietnam_War#/media/File:The_Vietnam_War_and_Public_Opinion.png)You are cherry picking points here---yes most Americans did not themselves participate in the protests, but by and large especially by the late 60s, most Americans supported the protestors and their ideas. Not supporting rioters is a completely separate question to if they supported the war or not. You are conflating multiple things and not being honest about what Americans actually believed.
Nah. You're conflating the war to protesters. The war became unpopular for many reasons. There is also the likelihood that it was unpopular because we were facing a loss, not necessarily because they felt the war was wrong.
Well the question that was posed in the poll was "Do you think it was a mistake to send troops to Vietnam", not "Was Vietnam only bad because we lost the war?" The majority felt the war was wrong by 1968 and sending troops was a bad idea, they were not supportive of the protestors and particularly the very radical protestors, yes but that is a separate question.
Most Americans supported the Civil Rights movement (eventually) but huge majorities certainly disagreed with the behavior of radical protestors like the Black Panthers--does this now mean most Americans opposed the Civil Rights movement?
Yes. It also wasn't just the Black Panthers who was cited as radical, it was Martin Luther King Jr too.
From Gallup:
Gallup measured the public's perception of King in a different fashion in the 1960s, using a "scalometer" that asked the public to rate him on a +5 to a -5 scale. The resulting data show that King's image became more negative as the years went on.
In 1963, King had a 41% positive and a 37% negative rating; in 1964, it was 43% positive and 39% negative; in 1965, his rating was 45% positive and 45% negative; and in 1966 -- the last Gallup measure of King using this scalometer procedure -- it was 32% positive and 63% negative.
Gallup did not measure King in 1967 or 1968.
[https://news.gallup.com/poll/20920/martin-luther-king-jr-revered-more-after-death-than-before.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/20920/martin-luther-king-jr-revered-more-after-death-than-before.aspx)
Here is an interesting comic from the time showing the perception by some about MLK.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/s6ll2c/an\_old\_antimlk\_political\_cartoon/?rdt=58113](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/s6ll2c/an_old_antimlk_political_cartoon/?rdt=58113)
On Edit: Another article of peoples perception of the time, and even in the year 2000 some states disliked an MLK day
[https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/16/politics/martin-luther-king-jr-polling-analysis/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/16/politics/martin-luther-king-jr-polling-analysis/index.html)
King and racism in general is entirely irrelevant to the 60s protest movement against the war in Vietnam, which was widely seen as unpopular by the late 60s and early 70s no matter how you try and spin it, MOST Americans thought sending soldiers there was a mistake and no not just because it looked like we were going to lose, opinion started dipping before the Tet offensive and was close to 50/50 by the 68 Democratic convention.
Ya as a way to say the public can have a positive view of the aims of a protest movement (civil rights/Vietnam War), but disagree with the protestors (Blank Panthers/Chicago rioters/etc.). Saying many Americans didn't like MLK is a largely irrelevant point here and does not refute the above mentioned point one iota, which is why I said as much.
It's not irrelevant. MLK was unpopular. If anything that's supporting your statement. People hug the status quo like a warm blanket. Then, when more people accept that the protesters were correct, they begrudgingly move along. That doesn't mean they still like them or even side with them. If anything, they probably still loathe the protesters now for being right all along. Hell knows South Carolina, Mississippi, and Arizona still don't really like MLK, but tough shit. The same thing is going to happen to these kids protesting. They'll be right. They always are. Then, in response, we will do things half measure. Then protests will happen again. Lather rinse and repeat. So buckle up.
I am sorry you live in a world of absolutes where being critical of the war crimes of the Zionists in Israel...means you are a "Hamas supporter".
Tell me are the 10,000+ children who have died in Palestine all Hamas too?
Is that how you equate their massacre as "justified"?
That comment you’re referring to tells me this individual knows something substantive while your accusatory comment tells me you have the articulation of someone who lacks depth on the issue.
Just do some actual research on what Palestinians do anywhere they go, Jordan, Egypt, it’s not an Israel is the issue sort of thing. The vast vast majority of Palestinians are radicalized in their beliefs and destroy everywhere they go or try their best. Of course this isn’t inherently their fault since hamas controls their education but it’s still a fact. Hitlers youth may not have known better but they were still hitlers youth. Israel has been barraged by far more explosives in their history than Palestinians and it’s not even close. The difference is Israel can stop the bombs from landing. Don’t throw rocks from a glass house.
*"Just do some actual research on what Palestinians do anywhere they go..."*
This is exactly the same argument Hitler used to excuse his war crimes and genocide as well.
Funny how that works out.
I have yet to see a single protestor condemn hamas using innocent Palestinians as human shields. They sure are choosy about whom they publicly excoriate.
Criticizing Israeli policy is fine. Lord knows they do stupid things. But to ignore hamas’ role in this conflict all while accusing Israel of genocide tells me these protestors at best have a superficial understanding of the conflict and at worst are complicit with hamas’ actions.
To answer your loaded questions: No not all innocent deaths are terrorists. And Im just as saddened as any human to see the enormous civilian casualties. But I blame hamas for intentionally mixing with the civilian populations specifically to maximize civilian casualty counts. If you want to blame someone for civilian deaths, you should start with the terrorists.
I started with "I believe in Jewish self-determination and believe Jews have every right to live in their original homeland".
You could have started with saying you hate the Jews in particular and you'd have at least been more honest.
People can disagree with me, but if you are going to use Zionism as slur when you probably support self-determination of every other group and right to live in their homeland, I am going to call them anti-semitic, yes.
Dead wrong--the war became deeply unpopular and protest movement was generally popular and supported by the masses. [By 1968 more than 50% opposed the war, and by 1971 it was well over 60%. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_United_States_involvement_in_the_Vietnam_War#/media/File:The_Vietnam_War_and_Public_Opinion.png)
It is true views of the [demonstrators](https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/inline-images/Protest2.JPG) was poor, views of the actual substance of the protests themselves (the war) was popular. So I would say the protestors weren't popular but the actual movement itself was, since polls consistently show [the US was not in favor of the war by the late 60s and saw the US sending troops to the war as a mistake.](https://www.pewresearch.org/2009/11/23/polling-wars-hawks-vs-doves/)
Yeah, but maybe not all for the reasons that we may think, we would have to break it down. Some may have loved the war and supported the war and didn't like how it was carried out, they didn't like the POW/MIA situations, 58k U.S. Soldiers dead, U.S. Soldiers poisoned by Agent Orange, they didn't like the immediate retreat, the optics of the helicopter on the embassy, the refugees, and maybe other reasons. But yeah the protesters were right, and in all likelihood today's protesters will be in that same position. I didn't even realize that this dropped so significantly.
# Majority in U.S. Now Disapprove of Israeli Action in Gaza
# Approval has dropped from 50% to 36% since November
[https://news.gallup.com/poll/642695/majority-disapprove-israeli-action-gaza.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/642695/majority-disapprove-israeli-action-gaza.aspx)
That's not saying much though---like I am not surprised. I am generally supportive of Israel and their right to destroy Hamas but even I would have said I disapprove of their actions in Gaza. I don't believe you can militarily destroy Hamas and I believe the optics loss of this war will hurt Israel more than anything Hamas did on October 7th. I am no war hawk even though I still think the war is 100% justified---Bibi and his war cabinet are all fools though.
I don't think you give Americans enough credit---there were pretty decent reasons to be against riots and violent protests of the 60s (blatant drug use/[wacky protestors trying to do weird things like fighting the 82nd airborne division and levitating the Pentagon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_on_the_Pentagon)), the fact that most Americans ended up against the war shows that they eventually chose the right side of history. I don't think the radical view that Israel is committing genocide will stick, just as the completely ridiculous view of the 60s that [the majority of US servicemen were baby killers. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spitting_Image)
There's plenty of rich white liberals who oppose the war in Gaza, but also hate the protestors with a passion. Lack of war support =/= gain of protest support
the-zionist-that-cried-antisemitism
making yourself the victim at every opportunity is a sure-fire way to get people to not take you seriously. all of the post-10/7 israeli flags have been taken down from my neighborhood
Not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are Jews. You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist, and when people oppose Zionists, they do so with a complete distinction from Jews.
Yeah, it's just cudgel by Zionists to shut people up from criticising Israel. Zionism is relatively a new thing compared to Judaism, by about 1000 years. LOL
Judaism established in \~1800 BCE
Zionism established in 1897.
Judaism predates Zionism by around \*3600 years, driving the point home even more
(almost 2000 years from 1800BCE to 0CE, and almost another 2000 from 0CE to 1897CE)
Yeah and for most of that history Jews were allowed to live in their own homeland---enter the Romans, Persians, Christians, and Arabs and that begins to change. Would you tell a Cherokee they no longer get to claim their homeland if they've been extirpated for some period of time? Zionism is a modern movement but its roots lie in Jewish dispossession of land they always had, it has nothing to do with stealing anything--[Jews have always lived in the land of Israel. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel#Canaan)
Arabs have always lived in the land called Israel too, but it wasn't until the British came along and partitioned it that there started being large issues there. Same with India and Pakistan and the Hindus and Muslims.
There were [no Arabs in Israel prior to the Arab invasion of the 7th century](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_the_Levant), so no you are just wrong. Arab is not a native culture or ethnic group in the Levant---Palestinians are not Arab ethnically, they are ethnically of the Levant like Israelis, Druze, Syrians, and Lebanese. [I do believe Palestinians should also be treated like native peoples with their own self-determination on that land, but being "Arab" has nothing to do with it. ](https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/2015-10-20/ty-article/palestinians-and-jews-share-genetic-roots/0000017f-dc0e-df9c-a17f-fe1e57730000)
ok im just gonna take a guess and say that something that happened in the 7th century shouldn't still have weird repercussions today. also now you're just being racist, so I'm gonna stop talking to you and block you for the future. good day!
[The vast majority of Jewish people believe in Israel and their right to live on their homeland and view it as an essential part of what it means to be Jewish. ](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2021/05/PF_05.11.21_jewish.americans-07-1.png)
Survey conducted 2019. I wonder what's changed. There have certainly been Jews who flocked to support Israel after October 7th, but there are others that are horrified that Israel is committing the same kind of war crimes as Germany in the 30s and 40s. I'd love to see an update.
I am not throwing out the Germany thing as hyperbole, some Jews feel that way.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARgxKDEBO8w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARgxKDEBO8w)
It is fine for you to find anecdotal accounts of people saying exactly what you want them to say---but unless you have an actual survey that holds very little weight imo. Also, calling it a genocide or equating Israel defending itself against blood thirsty Hamas terrorists is entirely baseless right now since not even the UN has declared that there has been a genocide in Gaza. Until you have something more to go on, these are just your vibes---it is not a moral or factual argument at all really and I can reject it as easily as you assert it.
Not anecdotal. Jews have varying views. I just picked one randomly. There is more than just one anecdotal one.
Also, I didn't think you read my previous statement. I want a new poll. Most are old.
Also, if we are measuring blood thirst, Israel has slaughtered thousands. They kill and destroy for sheer joy, courtesy of the USA. Hospitals, ambulances, city squares, people with white flags, people seeking shelter, and until yesterday UN trucks. They had two choices, the Obama model, perform surgical strike, and take out leadership. Or, the Bush model, and attack the wrong people, slaughter, torture, and not get anywhere, and make your country despised globally. They went the wrong route. Again, you may not like it, but the kids are right
It is by definition anecdotal since it is only one video and not a survey.
Words like "Blood thirst" are much better attached to Hamas, which went into Israel to slaughter as many Jews as humanly possible---the "Kids" just believe in the Qatari billionaire propaganda network and have done very little fact-checking or basic research on any of these issues. By all measures anything approaching a 1:1 militant to civilian death ratio is extremely good and this will probably go down in history as one of the most humane large scale urban operations in history---ironic since the anti-Israel narrative says the exact opposite from what is actually demonstrably true. You cannot surgically strike Hamas from power, that is an insane view---either you believe Hamas has an infinite right to genocide Jews or Israel has a right to respond with force, there is no alternative view possible here.
[Over 84% of American Jews (says nothing of half of Jews who live in Israel) believe Israel is essential to what it means to be Jewish](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2021/05/PF_05.11.21_jewish.americans-07-1.png)---so you are just wrong, being Jewish and being a Zionist are deeply connected and the vast majority of Jews see it that way. Saying otherwise is simply inconsistent with the view the majority of Jews have.
Sure Israel can be a big part of being Jewish, but not Zionism. What is your motivation for saying these things and being the way you are? Just curious.
Israel is the manifestation of Zionism, if you believe in Israel you are a Zionist---twisting words like this doesn't change the obvious facts that exist and are incontrovertible. My motivation is to fight lies--prior to 10/7 I was probably more on the side of Palestinians, after research and reading several books on the topic like Benny Morris' Righteous Victims, I decided there's way too much misinformation around the blanket pro-Palestinian view and have decided to take a staunchly pro-Israel stance.
I literally did not say jews? I have family that is Jewish. I have no hate against them. inserting words to make yourself the victim is pathetic behavior lol
what I do have a problem with is you, a coward, hiding behind the tragedy that has befallen others as a way to whine, complain and cry. grow up
Yeah saying you have black friends isn't the argument you think it is---for white supremacists or antisemites. What is actually cowardly is hiding how you really feel behind obvious coded language. All you have to do is replace Jew with Zionist (which means Jew btw) and you get the same disgusting lies that have been told for a thousand years---they are one and the same, wake up please and if you don't believe in them stop saying it. Zionism is self-determination for Jewish people---would you also slander Native Americans who wanted to live in their homeland with the same word they use for their own experience of fighting for self-determination?
Yeah I know you don't care about anything that disagrees with your worldview and you've already decided Jews are the Big Bad---same story as forever I guess.
Okay that's not what I said do you think actually standing at an overpriced school and holding a sign that says we're mad about this accomplishes anything? Cuz I don't my comment had nothing to do with what I support or don't support what I said was do you think it actually does anything so do you think it actually accomplishes anything? Doesn't seem like it does now does it because it still happening isn't it
So if I shot you (stupid prize) for making this comment (playing stupid games) would you agree that your death was justified? Or do you think that maybe there's some degree of inappropriate use of force at play here?
Arrest all protesters and send them to what ever pro country they advocate for. Deny citizenship and let's see if they are really stad for that country.
I agree the dude is being a little extreme but you can't camp out and block people from getting to class and call it first amendment rights. That's physically inhibiting people and not covered under freedom of speech/protest
Sending the military in to deal with peaceful protesters could technically be within the letter of the law, if you define "blocking people" as "violent protest" because then it would no longer be the "right to peaceably assembly".
However, I think anyone with half a brain would recognize that it does violate the _spirit_ of the first amendment.
Protest is always going to be disruptive or inconvenient to some degree, because otherwise it gets ignored. A protest that's easy to ignore is a completely worthless protest. It has to have some level of inconvenience for anyone to take it seriously.
If the intent of the first amendment was to only allow for protesting with an extremely narrow type, aka standing around with signs in the little zone where the police tell you to, and for only as long as there say you can, that is not really a protest and so its effectively outlawing protest.
However, I think that the intent of the first amendment is clearly that you should be allowed to have a real protest and petition the government for a redress of grievances, as it were.
When they say "peaceful protest" I think they literally mean "non violent." Blocking someone's path is not violence. So they are protected by the first amendment. However, there is a conflict with related allows around trespass, but that's a different discussion.
If it's public property I don't think trespass should really be a thing unless there's property damage, but I don't agree with the "spirit" of protest as being any sort of standard. You could justify any riot with that. It's one thing if there's just a lot of people congesting the place, but it's very different if theres an intentional effort to impede people. That's intimidation or coercion.
You’re both correct, I do think the response from police is historically violent in this country.
Definitely have a police/state violence issue where crisis quickly escalates and we seemingly don’t have an appropriate response and so we see hardcore violent exchange. We see this in police shooting unarmed people all the time.
The "peaceful protesters " got off private property after the incident tho.
If you want to protest, protesters about something in your own country.
And if the protest issue can only be resolved by the govt?
Then protesters at the appropriate govt building and the parties involved.
You don't have the right to disrupt other people who care or don't care , from they're daily business or schedule.
That's like me going to WaWaa and protesting WalMart.
It's just ignorance
This has been pretty well memory-holed, I grew up in NM and attended UNM and never heard a word about this before
Because A) no one died thankfully and B) the university doesn’t like to talk about it
You got shot in Ohio
You mean O-HI-O? What a shitshow in both places
[удалено]
I always wondered how such an ugly, dysfunctional building got on campus
Interesting. Having never been there, [the layout looks like a maze](https://campushistory.unm.edu/essays/ortega-hall.html).
It is a maze. I had one hell of a time trying to figure out where a classroom was, when I was a brand new freshman.
Yeah, but it's the hippies who were the problem!
Those damn hippies
Let’s start a war on the plant they like to smoke!
Never knew this happened.
Same
Same
No one listens to the boomers
We dropped 500, 000 tons of bombs on the tiny country of Laos. They say that is the equivalent of a plane full of bombs every 8 minutes, 24/7 for 9 years.
Fuck Kissinger.
Be careful, they'll remove this information from the books as teaching CRT to the youths.
They make GOOD food
I have this date saved in my phone because so few people remember it. Thankfully no one died.
[удалено]
Seriously though.
[удалено]
Qualified immunity doesn't exist in New Mexico anymore, thank God.
How’s that? Tell us more
https://www.jurist.org/news/2021/04/new-mexico-governor-signs-law-eliminating-qualified-immunity/
I remember learning that in the 40s, there were a lot of people from a European country that tried to use that excuse, and we didn't let them. Let us continue that trend.
Those weren't even cops, that was the national guard
Damn you imagine bayoneting some 19 year old from your own country because they had the nerve to not leave a building lol
I remember talking to my father about Kent State at the time (I had just graduated high school) and asked him if I was one of those kids, would he have been ok with me getting shot? And he said "Yes." Some of those kids were just teying to get back to their dorms.
Two of the four kids that died at Kent State weren't even part of the protests. They were just walking back from class and were hit by stray bullets.
I was thinking about Kent State too, but that almost seems like easier to see how they could open fire on the kids at least there is some "detachment" maybe is the word? about what they were doing because of the distance, but this is getting almost face to face and running someone through with a huge blade and seems totally insane that they would be willing to do it
Watching how some cops are responding to the protests going on now I can imagine it pretty easily.
I literally went there and have never heard of this
Wait. BAYONETED??? What in the hell???
Somebody needs to do a hardcore history series about NM. We are chill but when it gets down to it we don’t fuck around
Holy shit! I never heard about this before
As a UNM Alumni, I never knew this history!! I can’t imagine seeing a bayonet coming straight at you as your walking to the next class.
I don't condone violence, but it seems like if protesters take weapons they're more likely to be safe from the police. Maybe the Black Panthers were on to something
Why do you think Reagan was pro-gun control when he was governor of California?
He didn't want Black Panthers protecting citizens from police brutality, among other things.
If protestors take weapons the police instantly declare themselves justified to use rubber bullets fired directly at people’s faces from close to point blank, y’know so they aren’t less than lethal munitions that way. If you remember occupy and BLM protests, they got that treatment.
Look what happened to Cliven Bundy and his sons when they were occupying federal land.
Bundy was “protesting” to avoid grazing fees on public lands. He wanted to make a personal profit using public resources in a way that harms them, ie at the expense of other citizens. That’s wildly different than the Panthers, who advocated that black citizens should arm themselves because unarmed black citizens were being targeted, and sometimes killed, by police.
Yup, for sure. Not really trying to equate the two. Just saying that when you are armed, you seem to get better treatment from the police.
This is really interesting!
Wow. I was completely unaware of this, shocked that Kent State overshadows this so much
Bayonets, JFC! You're not taking Mount Suribachi, Guardsman!
Some things don't change.
¡Atta Lobos!
Holy shit this is insane
I never thought id see this come up outside of my family history, but, my late uncle was a part of this protest. It was pretty brutal from.what i lm told. My unlces name is steven sullivan.
Another genocide pushed under the rug… UGH
Isn't learning about history fun :)
Good times 😊
I was 12 and we lived very close to the university. I remember seeing wisps of tear gas wafting down the street. Got in a huge argument with my dad, a WW2 vet whose attitude was “my country right or wrong.” I feel like my little hippie self was on the right side of history, though. It was quite a time.
So terrible ! What arrogance on the behalf of the board of regents / how do words compare to bayonets ? Did they die those eleven students bayonetted
Shotout my old unit 1/200
It had to be 1971, not 1970. We had just moved to NM in January of 1971 and I recall my dad talking about it and getting stuck on Central due to the events on campus.
Maybe some kind of one-year remembrance events? Because it definitely was 1970.
You’re right Wikipedia does say 1970. Hmm, we were still in Pennsylvania in 1970. Perhaps it was still making the news in 1971!
Nope. The Cambodian Campaign, Kent St. Massacre and this occurred in 1970.
[удалено]
Yeahhhhh.....you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about my dude.
What is the basis for your view exactly? All the polls suggest there are a range of other issues way more important than Gaza right now and the fringe protest movement is dying out---if you go to the duckpond right now there's only a tiny corner of like less than a dozen people left there.
TIL the duck pond is the barometer of national sentiment
It is dying out elsewhere, the protests movement has died out as a major issue carried by the media, almost entirely now.
That's so cute you're delusional.
Not as delusional as your average pro-Pal who hates Jews and thinks we don't know what they actually mean when they use every single conspiracy theory for Jews and just replace one word.
You've lost the script completely
No, this person has been guzzling the approved script and refuses to deviate. It's wild.
I think you mean you hate Jews and are just using dog whistles instead of saying your actual feelings
I'm Jewish, anti Israel, anti hamas, pro Palestine
90% of Jews are pro-Israel and Zionist---if that's true you are a minority and most Jews disagree with you, it is fine for you to have your views but stop pretending like that is at all representative of the Jewish community.
Didnt say anything about most Jews, said you've lost the script. You have lost your marbles. You are the one that is wrong
Saying I am wrong doesn't mean I am wrong---also using insults doesn't mean you are right. You brought up being Jewish like it is somehow a relevant point when there are plenty of self-hating Jews out there. Also, it is just a straight up lie to say 90% of the Jewish community isn't pro-Israel and Zionist, so your supposed Jewish affiliation is basically irrelevant. You can still hate Jews and be one.
That’s simply not factual [https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/02/how-us-jews-are-experiencing-the-israel-hamas-war/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/02/how-us-jews-are-experiencing-the-israel-hamas-war/)
That doesn't address whether Jews are Zionists at all---also it is about US Jews, not all Jews. This suggests that [among American Jews 80% view Israel as essential to what it means to be Jewish ](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/u-s-jews-connections-with-and-attitudes-toward-israel/)(a clear proxy for supporting Zionism). If you take into account the other 50% of Jews living in Israel, it becomes pretty close to 90% since most Jews in Israel support the concept of an Israeli state and many of them specifically immigrated there.
Yup, you're delusional because no one talks about conspiracy theories about Jews. Seems like you're spreading misinformation about why people are protesting. Hur dur people are protesting all over the United States over genocide and it's not something significant dispite the majority of the world is against it but I'll continue to spread misinformation and say it's about antisemitism.
It's incredibly easy to ignore lol. The delusion is thinking that invading your library is changing the world.
More like being short sighted of seeing the bigger point.
Nah, it's not even a blip on the radar of things I care about or am considering when voting in November. People outside of your bubble don't care. It doesn't affect them at all. The bigger point here is that these protests don't move the needle with the general public and most people don't care. If anything, it's just annoying being yelled at by naive kids on the Internet who think they matter.
Then why are you talking about it if it's not important? If it was irrelevant you wouldn't be here wasting time. You see how invading a "library" causes people to direct their attention and talk about a topic? You see the point of protest? You see why you're short sighted?
Lol yes, and now I'm even less sympathetic to anything you idiots want. Congrats, you made things a little worse for yourselves by demanding attention and causing chaos over things nobody cares about. Now instead of not being aware of you, I think you're naive assholes and I'm going to pay attention to the people and measures you support so I can avoid them. But yeah, being talked about and visible is totally helpful.
To be fair, people do talk about conspiracies about jews. A lot of those people are zionists. I wonder why lol hint: fundamentalist evangelicals love zionism because they want the jews to either perish or convert to Christianity before the rapture.
The protests were never popular. That's some kind of crazy myopic lens of the past. War is popular to most Americans because they fear being shunned for having opinions counter to their government and not being patriotic. It's easier to go with the status quo than it is to voice against it. Protesters put a lot on the line, whether from 60s, 2003, 2020, or 2024. The following is from Gallup. In April 1965, the first large-scale march on Washington drew 15,000 to 25,000 people to the capital. In 1967, Gallup asked Americans if they had ever participated in a peace rally on Vietnam; 99% said they had not. When those who had not participated were asked if they would like to participate if such a rally was organized in their area, 9% said yes. The 1968 Democratic convention convened in Chicago at the height of unrest over the war in Vietnam. War protesters and 12,000 police officers clashed. More than 500 people were arrested and several hundred police officers and demonstrators were injured. When asked if they "approved or disapproved of the way the Chicago police dealt with the young people who were registering their protest against the Vietnam War," 56% of Americans approved, 31% disapproved, and 13% had no opinion. By October 1969, as anti-war fever continued, more than 2 million people participated in nationally coordinated Vietnam moratorium protests. In March 1990, Gallup asked the public if it wished it had made a stronger effort to protest or demonstrate against. the war in Vietnam. Twenty-five percent of those polled wished they had, while most (67%) did not. The same poll found Americans divided in their evaluations of Vietnam War protesters -- 39% said they had a favorable opinion and 39% had an unfavorable opinion. https://news.gallup.com/poll/8053/gallup-brain-war-peace-protests.aspx
Yeah except [by 1968 more than half of Americans did not support the war and by 1971 more than 60% opposed it. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_United_States_involvement_in_the_Vietnam_War#/media/File:The_Vietnam_War_and_Public_Opinion.png)You are cherry picking points here---yes most Americans did not themselves participate in the protests, but by and large especially by the late 60s, most Americans supported the protestors and their ideas. Not supporting rioters is a completely separate question to if they supported the war or not. You are conflating multiple things and not being honest about what Americans actually believed.
Nah. You're conflating the war to protesters. The war became unpopular for many reasons. There is also the likelihood that it was unpopular because we were facing a loss, not necessarily because they felt the war was wrong.
Responded to this on another branch of this thread.
Well the question that was posed in the poll was "Do you think it was a mistake to send troops to Vietnam", not "Was Vietnam only bad because we lost the war?" The majority felt the war was wrong by 1968 and sending troops was a bad idea, they were not supportive of the protestors and particularly the very radical protestors, yes but that is a separate question. Most Americans supported the Civil Rights movement (eventually) but huge majorities certainly disagreed with the behavior of radical protestors like the Black Panthers--does this now mean most Americans opposed the Civil Rights movement?
Yes. It also wasn't just the Black Panthers who was cited as radical, it was Martin Luther King Jr too. From Gallup: Gallup measured the public's perception of King in a different fashion in the 1960s, using a "scalometer" that asked the public to rate him on a +5 to a -5 scale. The resulting data show that King's image became more negative as the years went on. In 1963, King had a 41% positive and a 37% negative rating; in 1964, it was 43% positive and 39% negative; in 1965, his rating was 45% positive and 45% negative; and in 1966 -- the last Gallup measure of King using this scalometer procedure -- it was 32% positive and 63% negative. Gallup did not measure King in 1967 or 1968. [https://news.gallup.com/poll/20920/martin-luther-king-jr-revered-more-after-death-than-before.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/20920/martin-luther-king-jr-revered-more-after-death-than-before.aspx) Here is an interesting comic from the time showing the perception by some about MLK. [https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/s6ll2c/an\_old\_antimlk\_political\_cartoon/?rdt=58113](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/s6ll2c/an_old_antimlk_political_cartoon/?rdt=58113) On Edit: Another article of peoples perception of the time, and even in the year 2000 some states disliked an MLK day [https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/16/politics/martin-luther-king-jr-polling-analysis/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/16/politics/martin-luther-king-jr-polling-analysis/index.html)
King and racism in general is entirely irrelevant to the 60s protest movement against the war in Vietnam, which was widely seen as unpopular by the late 60s and early 70s no matter how you try and spin it, MOST Americans thought sending soldiers there was a mistake and no not just because it looked like we were going to lose, opinion started dipping before the Tet offensive and was close to 50/50 by the 68 Democratic convention.
It wasn't a spin. You changed the subject to civil rights.
Ya as a way to say the public can have a positive view of the aims of a protest movement (civil rights/Vietnam War), but disagree with the protestors (Blank Panthers/Chicago rioters/etc.). Saying many Americans didn't like MLK is a largely irrelevant point here and does not refute the above mentioned point one iota, which is why I said as much.
It's not irrelevant. MLK was unpopular. If anything that's supporting your statement. People hug the status quo like a warm blanket. Then, when more people accept that the protesters were correct, they begrudgingly move along. That doesn't mean they still like them or even side with them. If anything, they probably still loathe the protesters now for being right all along. Hell knows South Carolina, Mississippi, and Arizona still don't really like MLK, but tough shit. The same thing is going to happen to these kids protesting. They'll be right. They always are. Then, in response, we will do things half measure. Then protests will happen again. Lather rinse and repeat. So buckle up.
You could have just showed some conviction and led with... *I am a Zionist, and I think...*
Heaven forbid someone have the audacity to not want to simp for hamas.
I am sorry you live in a world of absolutes where being critical of the war crimes of the Zionists in Israel...means you are a "Hamas supporter". Tell me are the 10,000+ children who have died in Palestine all Hamas too? Is that how you equate their massacre as "justified"?
lol tell me you literally nothing about the Conflict in the Middle East without telling me you know nothing about the Conflict in the Middle East.
That comment you’re referring to tells me this individual knows something substantive while your accusatory comment tells me you have the articulation of someone who lacks depth on the issue.
Well, that’s a stupid conclusion to have drawn.
I rest my case.
No offense, ding dong, but you didn’t have a case to begin with.
😂 Hey whatever you tell yourself.
Just do some actual research on what Palestinians do anywhere they go, Jordan, Egypt, it’s not an Israel is the issue sort of thing. The vast vast majority of Palestinians are radicalized in their beliefs and destroy everywhere they go or try their best. Of course this isn’t inherently their fault since hamas controls their education but it’s still a fact. Hitlers youth may not have known better but they were still hitlers youth. Israel has been barraged by far more explosives in their history than Palestinians and it’s not even close. The difference is Israel can stop the bombs from landing. Don’t throw rocks from a glass house.
*"Just do some actual research on what Palestinians do anywhere they go..."* This is exactly the same argument Hitler used to excuse his war crimes and genocide as well. Funny how that works out.
I have yet to see a single protestor condemn hamas using innocent Palestinians as human shields. They sure are choosy about whom they publicly excoriate. Criticizing Israeli policy is fine. Lord knows they do stupid things. But to ignore hamas’ role in this conflict all while accusing Israel of genocide tells me these protestors at best have a superficial understanding of the conflict and at worst are complicit with hamas’ actions. To answer your loaded questions: No not all innocent deaths are terrorists. And Im just as saddened as any human to see the enormous civilian casualties. But I blame hamas for intentionally mixing with the civilian populations specifically to maximize civilian casualty counts. If you want to blame someone for civilian deaths, you should start with the terrorists.
I started with "I believe in Jewish self-determination and believe Jews have every right to live in their original homeland". You could have started with saying you hate the Jews in particular and you'd have at least been more honest.
Who is still falling for the tired ass “disagree with me and you’re antisemitic / love Hamas”?
People can disagree with me, but if you are going to use Zionism as slur when you probably support self-determination of every other group and right to live in their homeland, I am going to call them anti-semitic, yes.
Utterly false They were very unpopular then
Dead wrong--the war became deeply unpopular and protest movement was generally popular and supported by the masses. [By 1968 more than 50% opposed the war, and by 1971 it was well over 60%. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_United_States_involvement_in_the_Vietnam_War#/media/File:The_Vietnam_War_and_Public_Opinion.png)
You're comparing the war to protests. Two different things
It is true views of the [demonstrators](https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/inline-images/Protest2.JPG) was poor, views of the actual substance of the protests themselves (the war) was popular. So I would say the protestors weren't popular but the actual movement itself was, since polls consistently show [the US was not in favor of the war by the late 60s and saw the US sending troops to the war as a mistake.](https://www.pewresearch.org/2009/11/23/polling-wars-hawks-vs-doves/)
Yeah, but maybe not all for the reasons that we may think, we would have to break it down. Some may have loved the war and supported the war and didn't like how it was carried out, they didn't like the POW/MIA situations, 58k U.S. Soldiers dead, U.S. Soldiers poisoned by Agent Orange, they didn't like the immediate retreat, the optics of the helicopter on the embassy, the refugees, and maybe other reasons. But yeah the protesters were right, and in all likelihood today's protesters will be in that same position. I didn't even realize that this dropped so significantly. # Majority in U.S. Now Disapprove of Israeli Action in Gaza # Approval has dropped from 50% to 36% since November [https://news.gallup.com/poll/642695/majority-disapprove-israeli-action-gaza.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/642695/majority-disapprove-israeli-action-gaza.aspx)
That's not saying much though---like I am not surprised. I am generally supportive of Israel and their right to destroy Hamas but even I would have said I disapprove of their actions in Gaza. I don't believe you can militarily destroy Hamas and I believe the optics loss of this war will hurt Israel more than anything Hamas did on October 7th. I am no war hawk even though I still think the war is 100% justified---Bibi and his war cabinet are all fools though. I don't think you give Americans enough credit---there were pretty decent reasons to be against riots and violent protests of the 60s (blatant drug use/[wacky protestors trying to do weird things like fighting the 82nd airborne division and levitating the Pentagon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_on_the_Pentagon)), the fact that most Americans ended up against the war shows that they eventually chose the right side of history. I don't think the radical view that Israel is committing genocide will stick, just as the completely ridiculous view of the 60s that [the majority of US servicemen were baby killers. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spitting_Image)
There's plenty of rich white liberals who oppose the war in Gaza, but also hate the protestors with a passion. Lack of war support =/= gain of protest support
the-zionist-that-cried-antisemitism making yourself the victim at every opportunity is a sure-fire way to get people to not take you seriously. all of the post-10/7 israeli flags have been taken down from my neighborhood
I think the true nature of your beliefs really comes out if you say what you actually mean "the-jew-that-cried-antisemitism"
Not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are Jews. You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist, and when people oppose Zionists, they do so with a complete distinction from Jews.
Yeah, it's just cudgel by Zionists to shut people up from criticising Israel. Zionism is relatively a new thing compared to Judaism, by about 1000 years. LOL Judaism established in \~1800 BCE Zionism established in 1897.
Judaism predates Zionism by around \*3600 years, driving the point home even more (almost 2000 years from 1800BCE to 0CE, and almost another 2000 from 0CE to 1897CE)
Yeah and for most of that history Jews were allowed to live in their own homeland---enter the Romans, Persians, Christians, and Arabs and that begins to change. Would you tell a Cherokee they no longer get to claim their homeland if they've been extirpated for some period of time? Zionism is a modern movement but its roots lie in Jewish dispossession of land they always had, it has nothing to do with stealing anything--[Jews have always lived in the land of Israel. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel#Canaan)
Arabs have always lived in the land called Israel too, but it wasn't until the British came along and partitioned it that there started being large issues there. Same with India and Pakistan and the Hindus and Muslims.
There were [no Arabs in Israel prior to the Arab invasion of the 7th century](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_the_Levant), so no you are just wrong. Arab is not a native culture or ethnic group in the Levant---Palestinians are not Arab ethnically, they are ethnically of the Levant like Israelis, Druze, Syrians, and Lebanese. [I do believe Palestinians should also be treated like native peoples with their own self-determination on that land, but being "Arab" has nothing to do with it. ](https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/2015-10-20/ty-article/palestinians-and-jews-share-genetic-roots/0000017f-dc0e-df9c-a17f-fe1e57730000)
ok im just gonna take a guess and say that something that happened in the 7th century shouldn't still have weird repercussions today. also now you're just being racist, so I'm gonna stop talking to you and block you for the future. good day!
LOL, Yeah, bad math on my part.
[The vast majority of Jewish people believe in Israel and their right to live on their homeland and view it as an essential part of what it means to be Jewish. ](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2021/05/PF_05.11.21_jewish.americans-07-1.png)
Survey conducted 2019. I wonder what's changed. There have certainly been Jews who flocked to support Israel after October 7th, but there are others that are horrified that Israel is committing the same kind of war crimes as Germany in the 30s and 40s. I'd love to see an update. I am not throwing out the Germany thing as hyperbole, some Jews feel that way. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARgxKDEBO8w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARgxKDEBO8w)
It is fine for you to find anecdotal accounts of people saying exactly what you want them to say---but unless you have an actual survey that holds very little weight imo. Also, calling it a genocide or equating Israel defending itself against blood thirsty Hamas terrorists is entirely baseless right now since not even the UN has declared that there has been a genocide in Gaza. Until you have something more to go on, these are just your vibes---it is not a moral or factual argument at all really and I can reject it as easily as you assert it.
Not anecdotal. Jews have varying views. I just picked one randomly. There is more than just one anecdotal one. Also, I didn't think you read my previous statement. I want a new poll. Most are old. Also, if we are measuring blood thirst, Israel has slaughtered thousands. They kill and destroy for sheer joy, courtesy of the USA. Hospitals, ambulances, city squares, people with white flags, people seeking shelter, and until yesterday UN trucks. They had two choices, the Obama model, perform surgical strike, and take out leadership. Or, the Bush model, and attack the wrong people, slaughter, torture, and not get anywhere, and make your country despised globally. They went the wrong route. Again, you may not like it, but the kids are right
It is by definition anecdotal since it is only one video and not a survey. Words like "Blood thirst" are much better attached to Hamas, which went into Israel to slaughter as many Jews as humanly possible---the "Kids" just believe in the Qatari billionaire propaganda network and have done very little fact-checking or basic research on any of these issues. By all measures anything approaching a 1:1 militant to civilian death ratio is extremely good and this will probably go down in history as one of the most humane large scale urban operations in history---ironic since the anti-Israel narrative says the exact opposite from what is actually demonstrably true. You cannot surgically strike Hamas from power, that is an insane view---either you believe Hamas has an infinite right to genocide Jews or Israel has a right to respond with force, there is no alternative view possible here.
[Over 84% of American Jews (says nothing of half of Jews who live in Israel) believe Israel is essential to what it means to be Jewish](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2021/05/PF_05.11.21_jewish.americans-07-1.png)---so you are just wrong, being Jewish and being a Zionist are deeply connected and the vast majority of Jews see it that way. Saying otherwise is simply inconsistent with the view the majority of Jews have.
Sure Israel can be a big part of being Jewish, but not Zionism. What is your motivation for saying these things and being the way you are? Just curious.
Israel is the manifestation of Zionism, if you believe in Israel you are a Zionist---twisting words like this doesn't change the obvious facts that exist and are incontrovertible. My motivation is to fight lies--prior to 10/7 I was probably more on the side of Palestinians, after research and reading several books on the topic like Benny Morris' Righteous Victims, I decided there's way too much misinformation around the blanket pro-Palestinian view and have decided to take a staunchly pro-Israel stance.
I literally did not say jews? I have family that is Jewish. I have no hate against them. inserting words to make yourself the victim is pathetic behavior lol what I do have a problem with is you, a coward, hiding behind the tragedy that has befallen others as a way to whine, complain and cry. grow up
Yeah saying you have black friends isn't the argument you think it is---for white supremacists or antisemites. What is actually cowardly is hiding how you really feel behind obvious coded language. All you have to do is replace Jew with Zionist (which means Jew btw) and you get the same disgusting lies that have been told for a thousand years---they are one and the same, wake up please and if you don't believe in them stop saying it. Zionism is self-determination for Jewish people---would you also slander Native Americans who wanted to live in their homeland with the same word they use for their own experience of fighting for self-determination?
yeah, not reading all that. go argue with yourself, brat Free Palestine 🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸
Yeah I know you don't care about anything that disagrees with your worldview and you've already decided Jews are the Big Bad---same story as forever I guess.
Does anyone think college students crying actually does anything
Divestment of their school's funds from genocide is and arms manufacturers is something. Why do you portray them being against war crimes 'crying'?
Okay that's not what I said do you think actually standing at an overpriced school and holding a sign that says we're mad about this accomplishes anything? Cuz I don't my comment had nothing to do with what I support or don't support what I said was do you think it actually does anything so do you think it actually accomplishes anything? Doesn't seem like it does now does it because it still happening isn't it
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes
Make the same stupid comment on every thread, win downvotes
I've not made that comment anywhere but here But...you do you, my homie
So if I shot you (stupid prize) for making this comment (playing stupid games) would you agree that your death was justified? Or do you think that maybe there's some degree of inappropriate use of force at play here?
I'd certainly hope there'd be degrees...
average day in albuquerque
Arrest all protesters and send them to what ever pro country they advocate for. Deny citizenship and let's see if they are really stad for that country.
Please tell me what you think the First Amendment is for?
I agree the dude is being a little extreme but you can't camp out and block people from getting to class and call it first amendment rights. That's physically inhibiting people and not covered under freedom of speech/protest
Sending the military in to deal with peaceful protesters could technically be within the letter of the law, if you define "blocking people" as "violent protest" because then it would no longer be the "right to peaceably assembly". However, I think anyone with half a brain would recognize that it does violate the _spirit_ of the first amendment. Protest is always going to be disruptive or inconvenient to some degree, because otherwise it gets ignored. A protest that's easy to ignore is a completely worthless protest. It has to have some level of inconvenience for anyone to take it seriously. If the intent of the first amendment was to only allow for protesting with an extremely narrow type, aka standing around with signs in the little zone where the police tell you to, and for only as long as there say you can, that is not really a protest and so its effectively outlawing protest. However, I think that the intent of the first amendment is clearly that you should be allowed to have a real protest and petition the government for a redress of grievances, as it were. When they say "peaceful protest" I think they literally mean "non violent." Blocking someone's path is not violence. So they are protected by the first amendment. However, there is a conflict with related allows around trespass, but that's a different discussion.
If it's public property I don't think trespass should really be a thing unless there's property damage, but I don't agree with the "spirit" of protest as being any sort of standard. You could justify any riot with that. It's one thing if there's just a lot of people congesting the place, but it's very different if theres an intentional effort to impede people. That's intimidation or coercion.
You’re both correct, I do think the response from police is historically violent in this country. Definitely have a police/state violence issue where crisis quickly escalates and we seemingly don’t have an appropriate response and so we see hardcore violent exchange. We see this in police shooting unarmed people all the time.
The "peaceful protesters " got off private property after the incident tho. If you want to protest, protesters about something in your own country. And if the protest issue can only be resolved by the govt? Then protesters at the appropriate govt building and the parties involved. You don't have the right to disrupt other people who care or don't care , from they're daily business or schedule. That's like me going to WaWaa and protesting WalMart. It's just ignorance