Cozmo D Posted October 10, 2005 Report Share Posted October 10, 2005 If he wanted to take the lead for his community, he should have addressed the hordes of young black men roaming the city, raping girls, carjacking, shooting at rescue helicopters... (rescue helicopters!), shooting at people waiting to be rescued infront of the superdome including the sick and the elderly, shooting at people while they are being rescued, shooting at law enforcement, looting gun shops... People involved in the rescue efforts have said that they are afraid for their lives and some have refused to go into the city because of the violence... There are police officers that have turned in their badges saying that they've lost their homes, they don't want to lose their lives... You want to address some issues, lets talk about all the issues... don't be myopic. __________________________________________________________________________________________ Why is the government sending troops trained to kill? Because there are predators roaming around, shooting and raping people. Carjackings... houses being broken into and people being attacked... You can't save massive amounts of people when you're being shot at and violently harassed. It's hard to save people when you yourself are afraid for your life and there is a lack of law enforcement officials. The government is trying to reestablish order while they are trying to save lives. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ We're talking about civilians trying to help people and being shot at... People passing out food and being assaulted. Kanye, address that. Others are addressing the racism but everyone seems to shy away from the issue of needless violence and assault. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ The problem with what Kanye said is that he spoke it at a time and a place that was inappropriate. Again, he should have sought to promote unity and to call on Americans to help their fellow Americans... It was not the time and the place to call out the president or criticize the government. He had a right to say what he said, but he chose a poor time and place to say it. And again, if he realy wanted to say something meaningful, he should have called on his brothers in Louisiana to work with one another and to stop the violence and the lawlessness. He should have called on them to work with those who are trying to provide aid, not hinder their efforts. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ The desperate efforts to impose some sense of order amid the chaos were further hampered by outbreaks of looting, particularly in New Orleans where one Wal-Mart store was ransacked with its whole collection of weapons taken. "There are gangs of armed men in the city moving around the city," said Terry Ebbert, the city's homeland security chief. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ People are being sent down to shoot people? Is Kanye daft? Troops are being sent down to reestablish order in the midst of violence and disorder, not for the purpose of shooting people... ___________________________________________________________________________________________ So troops should be told not to shoot? Let crime run rampant? Let those who raided the gun shops and the gun section at the Walmart have their way? Don't worry about the fact that these young men are raping people or shooting at them? Let's be serious. Troops haven't been ordered to shoot at people taking soda... They've been told to reestablish order and to stop crime, shoot if they have to, all in an attempt to make the rescue efforts in Louisiana smoother and easier for surviviors and for those aiding in the relief efforts. People are shooting at rescue helicopters... what would you do? The police shot and killed 5 gunmen today who fired at navy core of engineer workers... You have to understand that these troops are necessary... It would be interesting to find out what Kanye has to say to these people shooting at rescue workers... He seems to be harsh on those who are trying to help and silent on those who are hindering the efforts. Yes, you're right. Kanye said that Bush doesn't care about black people. My mistake. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Again, just to draw attention to this... Troops earlier today shot and killed 5 or 6 out of 8 gunmen who fired at navy core of engineer workers trying to repair one of the levees... "They've given them permission to go down and shoot us." Good call Kanye... who gave these gunmen permission to shoot at relief workers? ___________________________________________________________________________________________ The violence was brought up as a contrast with Kanye's statement that troops are being sent to shoot black people. Troops are being sent to quel the violence and to reestablish order in the city. People are shooting at rescue workers. That is unacceptable. Kanye's statement intimated that troops aren't needed and that they are just being sent down there to shoot and harass black people. That statement is utterly ludicrous given the violence and disorder than is taking place in the city. In hindsight, we can see that violence has decreased and that a certain level of order has been established in the city. Troops have not been needlessly shooting at and harassing black people. I'll leave it to some of you as to what to make of Kanye's statement now... ___________________________________________________________________________________________ I think some of you guys are under the impression that this was just petty crime and shoot to kill orders are too strident. Lets clarify. Here's a short quote from ABC. Thousands of troops have struggled to counter armed looters and help tens of thousands of refugees flee New Orleans, where chaos reigns three days after Hurricane Katrina. Here is what the black mayor of Louisiana did... The lawlessness distracted from frantic efforts to evacuate the city, where Nagin took hundreds of exhausted police off search and rescue duties to fight the looting gangs. Does someone want to say that the mayor was motivated by race to go after these looters? Here's another quote... There were reports of gunbattles and rapes with gangs of looters and carjackers roaming in the streets and bodies lying by the roadside. Some helicopters bringing relief supplies were shot at and arsonists set fire to some of the few buildings still standing in the city. I just want to clarify that these weren't isolated incidents... One shooting here... one raping there... This was widespead. So when the governor of Louisiana (not the federal government) gives shoot to kill orders, I don't think she's being whimsical. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Also, you asked why Kanye would need to balance what he said on air. He mentions that troops are being sent to shoot black people. Does he mention why troops have been given shoot to kill orders. This is where the bias becomes glaring. In the face of the arson, looting, raping and general unrest in the city, his beef is with the fact that troops are being sent in to regain order, even if they have to use force. He doesn't have any beef with those who are hindering relief efforts. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ No spin. Kanye voiced an accusation. Not a concern. If Martial Law was to be fully implemented in NO, shoot to kill orders would have been the same. The shoot to kill orders were passed down by the governor of Louisiana, not the federal government. The decision is certainly not arbitrary. There is hard evidence that the step was needed, regardless of the race of the people. If buildings set on fire by arsonists and shootings taking place in the streets aren't evidence of the need for such a measure, what is? Troops aren't roaming around shooting people taking food. They are trying to keep the peace in a place where lawlessness is hindering search and rescue efforts. There have been no reports of troops shooting victims, innocent people, or people taking food. I have heard of troops shooting and killing men who shot at navy core of engineer workers and stopping arsonists. In hindsight, they have done an excellent and fair job in reestablishing some level of peace in NO. Why is it that people are afraid to look at the whole picture. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ You said that Kanye was simply voicing his concern of black people being grouped together when troops were told to shoot to kill. I pointed out that it was more of an accusation, and you have to question whether he understood what the full situation was in NO, or whether he chose to ignore it and make his accusation anyway. From the statement he made, he didn't convey concern that innocents and criminals may be grouped together; rather, it seemed that he had already made up his mind as to why troops were going in with shoot to kill orders, or at the very least, made it sound that way. The whole issue of that statement seems to be one of perception, or more accurately, how he chose to perceive the situation. In the face of the shootings, the arson, the raping, and the looting, he chose to make it sound like troops would be entering the city to shoot black people indiscriminately rather than to simply restore order, scaring away those who would use the tragedy for their own personal gain. I listened to the govenor of Louisiana give the "shoot to kill" order. For all her tough talk of M16s, troops weren't going to go in to shoot people taking bread and water, and in hindsight, they haven't done that. They haven't grouped the innocent with the criminals. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ I've posted how I think the media has handled this, but this really drew my attention... the absolute avalanche of UNSUBSTANTIATED rumors of wide-spread violence and atrocities Atrocities may be a strong word... but... http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/09/01/katrina.impact/ http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/09/01/katr...iper/index.html http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900S...CZ?OpenDocument http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?...3466&n=10063508 http://uk.news.yahoo.com/02092005/325/troo...t-violence.html _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Police Chief Eddie Compass said he sent in 88 officers to quell the situation at the building, but they were quickly driven back by an angry mob. "We have individuals who are getting raped, we have individuals who are getting beaten," Compass said. "Tourists are walking in that direction and they are getting preyed upon." -------------------------- "Please don't send the National Guard," Raymond Cooper told CNN by telephone. "Send someone with a bullhorn outside the place that can talk to these people first." He described scenes of lawlessness and desperation, with people simply dragging corpses into corners. "They have quite a few people running around here with guns," he said. "You got these young teenage boys running around up here raping these girls." --------------------------- "We were coming in from a parking deck at Tulane Medical Center, and a guy in a white shirt started firing at us," Curiel said. "The National Guard [troops], wearing flak jackets, tried to get a bead on this guy... We got back to Charity Hospital with with food from Tulane and we said, 'OK the snipers are behind us, let's move on,' " Curiel said. "We started loading patients [for transport] and 20 minutes later, shots rang out." ---------------------------- A member of that family, Africa Brumfield, 32, confirmed the incident but declined to be quoted about it, saying her family did not wish to discuss it. But she spoke of general conditions here. "There is rapes going on here. Women cannot go to the bathroom without men. They are raping them and slitting their throats. They keep telling us the buses are coming but they never leave," she said through tears. I'm not sure whether you're simply playing devil's advocate, or whether you're genuinely trying to intimate that the violence and disorder in New Orleans wasn't really that bad; that the media was just sensationalizing the stories and people who were in the area suffering were making a lot of these things up... the few police officers who were left were simply spreading rumors... Are you saying that these numerous accounts from different sources can't be trusted? Seems like the govenor of Louisiana believed them enough to send in troops. Seems like the mayor of New Orleans believed them enough to remove police officers from search and rescue operations to focus on curtailing crime. A day after Nagin took 1,500 police officers off search-and-rescue duty to try to restore order in the streets, there were continued reports of looting, shootings, gunfire and carjackings. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-0...htm?POE=NEWISVA Unsubstantiated... rumors... They certainly seemed real to the people involved, not just the media. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ It's also easy to not want to believe that crimes are being committed. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the situation there. It doesn't change what the police officers have said, what those who are suffering have said and what the media has reported that they have said. It doesn't change the mayor's actions, nor the govenor's in putting some focus on reestablishing order. Now are all these people lying to you or do you just choose to ignore them? Here's an excerpt of the "Army Corps of Engineers" incident. Something tells me that if you could say that it didn't happen at all, you would. According to New Orleans Deputy Police Chief W. J. Riley, on September 4 police shot and killed five or six people walking on the Danziger Bridge. Initial reports said that the victims were Army Corps of Engineers contractors on their way to launch barges involved in the 17th Street Canal repair. Shortly afterwards, the initial report was retracted, and it was reported that the men shot by police were gunmen who had opened fire on the contractors. The Army Corps of Engineers also confirmed that its contractors were not killed by police, but gunmen who fired at them were killed. Original reports claim five killed, but later police confirm only two killed, two wounded and two arrested. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Before I address your post... earlier, you noted that in the news reports, among other things, "not ONE is first person." I went on to supply you with a number of quotes from people on the ground in New Orleans. You may either want to clarify the "not ONE is first person" statement or retract it. You've seemed to side step that and have gone on to attack the credibility of those who were quoted, such as you did with the "guy with a white shirt" incident or citing "mass hystyeria". Unfortunately, you can't attack the individual's credibility and at the same time maintain that the statement isn't made in "first person." Moving along... These are from the Times Picayune... the New Orleans Newspaper... Arkansas National Guardsman Mikel Brooks stepped through the food service entrance of the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center Monday, flipped on the light at the end of his machine gun, and started pointing out bodies. "Don't step in that blood - it's contaminated," he said. "That one with his arm sticking up in the air, he's an old man." Then he shined the light on the smaller human figure under the white sheet next to the elderly man. "That's a kid," he said. "There's another one in the freezer, a 7-year-old with her throat cut." He moved on, walking quickly through the darkness, pulling his camouflage shirt to his face to screen out the overwhelming odor. "There's an old woman," he said, pointing to a wheelchair covered by a sheet. "I escorted her in myself. And that old man got bludgeoned to death," he said of the body lying on the floor next to the wheelchair. I just want to point out what the "dailykos" website said... It turns out that the Convention Center was NOT overrun by armed gangs. It turns out that a 7 year old child was NOT raped and had her throat cut. Turns out that most of the rumor and innuendo about the Superdome and Convention Center descending into savagery was just that apparently intended to demonize the victims of this national disaster, who were poor and black and you know that those big buck negros just wanna rape and kill 7 year old children, right? Now, they haven't said that these things are unproven or are still under investigation as your other quotes have. They said, very clearly, and repeatedly, that they did NOT happen. Now it's one thing to say that something hasn't been substantiated, but it's certainly something entirely different to say that these things have NOT happened at all. Seems like an attempy to demonize the media more than anything else... This site seems about as fair and balanced as Fox News. Here's another Federal officials make first arrest By Gwen Filosa Staff writer Federal agents arrested a young Algiers man in the early Tuesday morning after agents said he shot at a military helicopter designed for rescue missions, U.S. Attorney Jim Letten said. The arrest Tuesday marked the first federal action against the lawlessness that preyed upon New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Wendell L. Bailey, 20, was arrested outside the building in which he had earlier taken aim with a .22-caliber handgun and fired at the helicopter that was flying in the darkness, federal prosecutors said. A criminal complaint filed against Bailey Tuesday accuses him of the federal crime of trying to "damage and destroy any aircraft and with being a felon in possession of a handgun. If convicted on both charges, Bailey could be sentenced to 30 years in prison. Letten held Bailey's case up as the first federal arrest and promised more would come. "He will be prosecuted very aggressively, federally," Letten said at the Emergency Operations Center in Baton Rouge, flanked by U.S. Attorney David Dugas of Baton Rouge and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives officials. U.S. District Judge Sarah Vance, of the eastern district, signed the arrest warrant. Bailey was booked at the temporary detention center set up by state officials in the storm-torn downtown of New Orleans, and is due in federal court located in Baton Rouge federal court later today. Special ATF agents were patrolling Algiers when they observed gunfire coming from an apartment window. Two young men then walked out of the building and were heard chatting about shooting at a helicopter. "They won't be back now," one of them said, according to an affidavit filed in U.S. District Court on Tuesday. Inside the apartment, ATF special agents found a .22-caliber Rhomn revolver and a .32-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver both hidden beneath a mattress – along with a box of 9-mm ammunition. Letten said that under federal law, Bailey's home address cannot be released. He said he did not have the specific address at which ATF nabbed Bailey. The second young man who was with Bailey was not arrested after ATF agents interviewed the unidentified man. Bailey has prior convictions for dealing marijuana and cocaine, Letten said. He admitted to ATF agents at the scene that he was a felon on probation and he told them were the firearms were, Letten's office said. At the time of the shooting, Letten said a number of civil and military aircraft were in the air helping with evacuation, search and rescue and delivering supplies. State Attorney General Charles Foti Jr., the former criminal sheriff in Orleans Parish, plans to open up a second detention center in New Orleans, likely using an existing facility that was built to be a jail, Letten said. And another.... Reuters' Denver-based photographer Rick Wilking arrived in New Orleans two days before Hurricane Katrina hit and stayed in the greater New Orleans area for six days. The following is his personal account of the storm and its violent aftermath. By Rick Wilking NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - It was dawn when he showed up out of nowhere. "Hey man, there's a ton of media up here and they have a lot of stuff. I don't see any cops. There's no security." The man in ragged clothes summoned his friends to attempt a "hit" on a convoy of a dozen media cars parked on the highway overpass near the New Orleans Superdome, three days after Hurricane Katrina hit. Fortunately for us the conversation was overheard. As soon as we saw a mob making its way toward us and just as a network anchor was about to go live for a morning show, the word went down the line. Before you knew it, the lights were struck, the wires tossed into trucks, the satellite dishes stowed, and photographers and reporters were speeding the wrong way down the interstate to the relative safety of a police checkpoint. When we got there the police told us there had been nearly 80 carjackings in the last few days, many of them media vehicles surrounded by mobs and stripped clean or stolen outright, sometimes at gunpoint. They also told us a policeman had been shot in the head (he lived) and so they had a new "shoot to kill" policy in place. I've covered dozens of natural disasters around the globe, from mudslides and floods in Europe to hurricanes and tornadoes in the United States. I always considered the assignments somewhat dangerous but not extremely so, because if you know what you are doing you can easily minimize the danger -- actually control your situation. Not so in New Orleans, where after one day of covering a storm and its aftermath I found myself covering a human tragedy of enormous proportions, compounded by a blatant criminal element bent on taking advantage of a very bad situation. Looting is almost always found in the initial hours after a storm -- particularly if the area hit is a poorer neighborhood. But armed gangs riding in pick-up trucks, shots being fired from the ground at military rescue helicopters overhead and media vehicles being hijacked are not things you expect. Covering flooded New Orleans was hard enough with many major roads under water, no power and no phones, not even cellular, without having to watch your back at every turn. All these people are making up things? Reporters are suffering from mass hysteria? Police officers and the National Guard. Really... Lets not forget, the point of the topic of violence and crimes taking place in New Orleans is to establish that Blanco was right in sending troops in with shoot to kill orders to restore order. Also, you made this statement... Hmmm... guy with a white shirt. Must have been the only white shirt in New Orleans, considering everybody there had been wading in filth for days. Strange that he could make out the guy in the white shirt but the National Guard couldn't get a bead on the guy. I wonder if this guy actually saw all of this himself, or if he's basically repeating something that was told to him by his colleagues. I'm guessing that the person in the white shirt had to be wading in the water with that same shirt for the duration of the disaster huh. I'm guessing that he was in the open in the water with a white shirt shooting at people so that he in turn could be easily shot. On top of all of it, you've alread tried to cast doubt on his story saying maybe he's just repeating what was told to him inspite of the fact that he repeatedly used the pronouns "we" and "us" when speaking about the event signifying that he was involved. "We were coming in from a parking deck at Tulane Medical Center, and a guy in a white shirt started firing at us." "We got back to Charity Hospital with with food from Tulane and we said, 'OK the snipers are behind us." "We started loading patients [for transport] and 20 minutes later, shots rang out." Sad atttempt... and the shooter could have been white. Maybe that would have changed your view on the story. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ I'll post what you said again. Now I'm specifically posting what you said, not what I think you may have thought or what I think you may have wanted to say. BUT, these people were overwhelmingly black. So, it is easy to believe all of these horrible rumors about what was going on... In another post, you said Yet, the racist perceptions of much of our nation, including many many blacks, somehow managed to morph them together as if they were one and the same. We seemed to believe that these crimes were committed by those who were suffering, instead of by criminals who were adding to their suffering. In fact, it seemed that the very blackness of many of the victims was at fault. Black people don't listen to warnings so they deserve to be stuck there. Black people shoot at rescue workers so they deserve to be left there. Black people loot whenever they get a chance so they deserve no provisions. You brought the issue of race into this discussion about violence and disorder in New Orleans. This was your initial argument... "these people were overwhelmingly black. So, it is easy to believe all of these horrible rumors about what was going on." My position was and still is that regardless of the race of those involved in crimes and lawlessness, order had to be established to help those who so desperately needed help. You made it race specific. The natural question to ask then is what if white people were the ones we were looking at? Would you then say that your statements would have been... BUT, these people were overwhelmingly white. So, it is easy to believe all of these horrible rumors about what was going on... The underlying current of your argument has as much to do with race as it has to do with "facts." You're absolutely right, and if the shooter had been black, the white community would've thought either the same thing, or that it had been a racially motivated robbery. So, what's your point? Edit: After re-reading this I realized that the shooter must have been a police officer, which changes the circumstances. So, you're saying that if it was the 1 black student amongst all of these white ones the black community would have suspected race played a part, which is correct. However, if it was one white student amongst mostly black ones, the white community would have thought that he was probably shot by mistake, or that the poor kid had fallen under the influence of these black kids, or that he deserved what he got for running with the black students in the first place. No, that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that if it was a black person shot by a white person, period, the black community would have perceived it as racism, whether the person shot was surrounded by whites, blacks, asians, or latinos, even in the absence of any evidence of racism. The color of the officer's skin would have been motive enough. Officials called on Boston University to suspend students of the school who took part in the riot. The majority of students that took part in the riot were white. If the majority of students that had taken part in the riots were black, the black community would have looked upon the call for suspensions as harsh and prejudiced. You're absolutely right, and the white community would have complained that they weren't harsh enough, and there would have been calls for more security and an increase in weapons bought in the area. So, what's your point? Funny how many whites said the same things concerning these white students. Many of those students were kicked out of school, and those who were found committing serious crimes got jail time, the harsher penalties that were called for. A few years ago, the party hours at Harvard University were cut back. Residents in the community claimed that music was often too loud and that students were often loud, drunk, and disorderly late at night. Upon receiving word, the initial perception of the situation in the black community was that this had something to do with race... that was until they found out that all school organizations that threw parties were affected. And what was the initial perception in the white community? Link please. There was no racial perception in the white and asian communities. No one liked it. Students complained. The reduction still stands. So yes, perhaps you understand that racism is imbedded in the American psyche, but what you seem not to understand is that it effects ALL Americans! If you did then you would realize how it even now effects YOU! For here you are now, insisting on believing that these heinous crimes happened to the degree and scale that was reported, regardless of the gross absence of evidence, regardless of the words of the Police Superintendent, regardless of your own common sense. Even if this evidence was to somehow miraculously appear now it would not change the fact that you gave into your racist perceptions in the absence of that evidence, it would only make you feel vindicated in your prejudice. Earlier you posted the following... you are obviously saying that I have a racial or racist viewpoint, which is belittling, insulting, and completely non-evident in anything and everything that I have written so far Though I honestly said nothing of the kind. Now you have charged me with having "racist perceptions" and basically a racist viewpoint on these matters. The hypocrisy in your statements is evident, but I'll give you some leeway. I'm sure you simply used stronger words than you meant to. I hope this is truly the case. Any charge with the word "racist" in it is very serious. Tone down your rhetoric. The reason that I believe that there was a great deal of crime has nothing to do with the race of those involved, absolutely nothing at all. You are woefully off base. I can't stress that enough. If those effected by the hurricane where mostly white, hispanic, or asian and the same things were being reported in the same volume as they are now, my honest response would be the same. The National Guard would need to be sent in to restore order with shoot to kill orders if the situation were the same. The problem in this case is that the reports are numerous as are the sources. Reporters, doctors, rescue workers, police and city officials have all reported quite a bit of crime. The real issue however is that citizens of New Orleans themselves have reported that there has been a lot of crime. Now you've attributed that to mass hysteria, but you're reaching, and you know it, whether you admit it or not. Are these black citizens trying to demonize other black citizens? People have reported that rescue helicopters were shot at. One person has been arrested so far. Was the press attempting to demonize blacks by reporting the shootings? Even in the face of numerous reports from numerous sources, am I to ignore what those on the ground are saying because it doesn't sound good or because I don't want to believe it? You go on to say this... Even if this evidence was to somehow miraculously appear now it would not change the fact that you gave into your racist perceptions in the absence of that evidence, it would only make you feel vindicated in your prejudice. It seems that you have already decided that much of the crime that the press, even the New Orleans press, and citizens have reported hasn't really happened. Your use of the phrase "miraculously appear" bears witness. Is it so unlikely that some of these things have happened that it would take a miracle for evidence to appear? You have bent over so far in the other direction that you discount things that are well documented. And then you go on to say that I am prejudiced because I believe what citizens are saying? Again, it has nothing to do with race for me. It has everything to do with what these people are saying and the preponderance of the claims and reports in general. They say that they are hungry and thirsty, and that they are being mistreated by troops... I will believe them. Why then shouldn't I believe them when they say crime has taken place? Because the police superintendent who has lost much of his police force has said that they haven't found evidence yet, even though bodies have been reportedly found in both the convention center and the superdome? This has nothing to do with race for me, and in going so far as to address my "prejuduce," you are way out of line. Tread lightly. I don't believe in shoot to kill orders when it comes down to dealing with problems in this country. The net result is usually dead Americans. The average peace officer or member of the military knows fully well when and how to kill anyway, and demonstrate their abilities often. "Shoot To Kill" orders are usually translated by those that are given them to mean "shoot now, ask questions later". No, the net result is usually stability. Think the worst, but this was proven in New Orleans. Troops weren't shooting people stealing bread. They weren't shooting people indiscrimintately as some want to think. They went in with shoot to kill orders and were still shot at. How much more bold would criminals have been if they believed that the national guard would have been passive? The severity of the situation, both the crimes taking place and more importantly, the need to help those who were suffering, called for the decision. So yes, much of the media coverage of this tragedy was racist, much of the response to it was racist, and much of OUR reaction to the entire episode was racist, and it was all brought about not by any person or persons, but by OUR racist American perceptions. How was the media coverage racist? How was the response, both from the American people and the govenment racist? False or vague blanket statements declared in certainty are still false or vague. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ I was speaking about perceptions and you know it. Did I say that you weren't speaking about perceptions? Don't shy away from the point. The fact remains that you were the one to introduce race to the discussion of crime and violence and you are well aware of this. Your initial argument wasn't about mass hysteria or citizens spreading rumors. It was about how people are more likely to believe these stories because those involved are black. You went on in another post to say that there was "not ONE" first person statement about crime, further trying to prove you point that people were relying on their racist perceptions. It turns out that there are SEVERAL first hand statements... Obviously wrong, and quickly covering up, you went on to try to discredit them, going so far as citing mass hysteria. I don't have to tell you how ridiculous and illogical that is. You should already know. Before you post anything in response to this, think about it, go back to your previous posts if you have to. I don't want to have to come back to this. And I agreed with you. What you refuse to admit is that the white community would have perceived it in a racial context as well, albeit likely one that was different than that of the black community.. No, you didn't simply agree with me. You added something that I didn't say and I had to correct you. The point of the example is that even though there may be no true racial issue in a given scenario, it can be quickly manufactured, whether black or white. This is what we have in New Orleans with the slow relief response. A slow response, which lacked any racial motivation, was given one. One would think that the mistakes and the incompetence leading to the slow response would be reason enough for the slow response, but ontop of that, those downing in their own racist perceptions chose to attatch racism to this... not because there was really any racism, but simply because blacks were involved. Instead of speaking about the racism that ultimately led these victims to poverty and helplessness, a few focused on the non-existant racism in the slow relief effort itself. Because your perceptions are racist does not make YOU a racist, this has been my point from the beginning. you are obviously saying that I have a racial or racist viewpoint, which is belittling, insulting, and completely non-evident in anything and everything that I have written so far And yet you persist with the hypocrisy... you say are offended and insulted when you falsely assume that I accuse you of having a racist viewpoint, but then you turn around and say the very same thing to me. And then you post something totally different from the point of my post. I'll say it again. Don't be a hypocrite. I believed these stories as well at first, but became increasingly skeptical as I observed none of it, and no evidence of it was forthcoming. I would be just as skeptical regardless of the races involved. You've conveniently forgotten. I posted an article as well as a link concerning the arrest of someone suspected of shooting at a rescue helicopter. I also posted the article from the New Orleans paper of the bodies found in the Convention Center. I also posted an article about a reporter's first hand account. It wasn't very sunny. Posted police confirmation of police officers having been shot at, and one was actually shot in the head. Navy contractors have been shot at. I posted that as well. I posted a doctor's first hand accound of how things were. It's not that there isn't evidence or information. You're just highly dismisive of it. I DOUBT them...severely. So you doubt the citizens and rescue workers "severely"... So you think that these victims may be lying in large numbers, all over New Orleans... I see. So, we got lucky, and only a few Americans died. This time. Sometimes we have lucked out, sometimes we haven't. Doesn't change how I feel about it. And the govenment could have attempted the alternative and had a lot more Americans die in this specific tradegy, including a few national guard troops. "They got lucky" is one of the most famously used phrases when someone has been shown to be wrong. I've already pointed it out to you, but your mind is closed to it. No, you actually haven't. You've claimed it, but you've made no logical argument to support it. In the arguments you have made, you've made it clear that you are decidedly one sided on the matter, going as far as to ignore incorrect statements that you have made. You need to reexamine who's mind is truly closed. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ You've provided excuse after excuse and dismissals, even of first person statements and stories that you said didn't exist in the first place. You said, "not ONE is first person." You were wrong, but instead of simply admitting that and moving on, you attempted to deflect... As for my usage of first person, most of the people on the ground that you quoted were relaying things that they were told. Regardless, it's not my statements that are in question here, but what TRULY happened in New Orleans. You write better than I do, hell, you write better than my lawyers, but this is not a debate. If what you're after is to be voted the smartest person here, you can have my proxy. The truth is that I have posted a number of statements in this thread that were first person. First person statements from reporters who described what they witnessed, first person statements from witnesses. I even posted a confirmation of an arrest of someone who is suspected of shooting at a rescue helicopter, and a confirmation of the story involving the navy contractors. There are indeed first person statements. You say that it is not your statements that are in question, but when you say things that are false and then you repeatedly say that you deal in "facts," it is hard to take what you say seriously. What's worse, you tried to distance yourself from what you said without first acknowledging it, trying to move the focus of the topic onto me as evidenced in your response. I added something that you had left out in order to skew the question of racist perceptions to appear as if only black people suffer from them. I didn't attemt to skew anything. The point of the example was to show that even when there is no racism at all, where it played no role, the perception of some will be that racism was involed anyway. Are white people guilty of this as well. Of course. The examples I used were specifically relevant to the relief response after Katrina however. In an earlier post, you pointed out that in response to the slow relief efforts after Katrina... Of course, white people will then say "but it could have happened to anybody"... but black people will answer, "but naturally it happened to us! At the same time, in the tear gas shooting that we have already established as having nothing to do with racism, if the person who was shot were black, the exact same thing would have been said. White people would say that anyone could have been shot... black people would respond that it naturally happened to a black person. Again, the point is that even when there isn't racism, some will perceive there to be, whether black or white, and this seems to be the case with the slow relief response in New Orleans. You did, and nowhere in anything that I have written is such a viewpoint evident. On the other hand, what you have written is crawling with it. No hypocrisy there. First, please post the quote where I said or intimated that you had "racist perceptions." I'd be more than happy to rebuff your claim. I have a post in mind, and I have already addressed what I said and what I meant, but I'd be more than happy to correct you again. I'll let you do the homework. I'm not one to mince words. If I truly believed that you had racist perceptions, I would have said it by now, and it would have been explicit, regardless of whether you would feel insulted or hurt. Please proceed to post that quote of mine and explain yourself. Second, please post examples of things that I have said that are "crawling" with revelation of my "racist perceptions." You made a statement, back it up. I'd be more than happy to set you straight on this as well. I believed these stories as well at first, but became increasingly skeptical as I observed none of it, and no evidence of it was forthcoming. I would be just as skeptical regardless of the races involved. I haven't forgotten anything. You posted a link concerning the arrest of someone who was shooting at helicopters days afterwards and outside of New Orleans. WTF does that have to do with the discussion? You posted an EXCERPT from an article about the bodies, with only ONE body witnessed that supposedly had succumbed from violence, and that spoke of another. You posted an article about a reporter who did NOT witness ANY violence. The Navy contractors story was all over the news, it also happened afterwards. You posted the doctor's account, which you find highly plausible and I find somewhat suspect. So, out of all that rampaging carnage you present "evidence" of ONE body, ONE mention of a body, ONE shooter in a white shirt, and ONE report of shots fired. Of this "evidence", NONE of it has been physically backed up. Yet, I shouldn't be skeptical? Even giving every one of these full credence, it falls far short of being indicative of the raping, murdering and pillaging rampaging hordes that we heard so much about. In fact, judging from this "evidence", the crime rate in New Orleans actually DROPPED. What does this have to do with the discussion? Algiers is a suburb of New Orleans affected by the hurricane. A young man was arrested for shooting at a rescue helicopter there. According to you, there's supposed to be no evidence of such things taking place. Well now someone has been arrested for it. You said that that these things we unsubstantiated. You said that there were no first person accounts. You said that there was no evidence. I have provided specific instances of a few reports and first hand accounts of people saying that many of these things actually did happen. I won't waste time doing all of your homework for you. If you are truly openminded, you will seek further information. Don't limit yourself to only what I have provided. Also I'm not sure if you expect news agencies to publish pictures of someone laying in waste, or if you expect a cameraman to chance upon a rape taking place and say, "Oh, look, lets go film it." You seem to ignore the fact that New Orleans has undergone a massive hurricane and flooding and that many of the protocols set in place to investigate crimes and to report crimes are almost completely non-existent and non-functioning. Take a look at the link below. http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2448 BTW, you used "victims". Do you mean "crime victims"? You mean you have found some? Link please. No, I didn't mean crime victims. I meant the victims of the hurricane. However, I'm glad you brought this up. Could you please link to anything where witnesses have said that crime was mind, minor, or non-existent. Have any witnesses said that most of these reports are false? I would like a link for those please. I've looked, and I was unable to find any. Also, in case you missed this in the link I provided above, I'm providing a more explicit link... You asked for a crime victim. This person was a victim of the hurricane, the flood, the government's incompetence, and lastly, rape. Charmaine Neville, has reported that she was raped. Below is one of the first hand accounts that isn't supposed to exist according to you. http://2theadvocate.com/stories/090405/new_soul001.shtml "Referring to getting raped, Neville said, "What he took from me was nothing, because he can't take my spirit, he can't take my soul. My soul is New Orleans." Really? Would you like to examine history and see how these things usually turn out? Your problem is you're trying to prove that you're right. I'm trying to get to what's right. You're in this little battle of wits all by yourself. I could care less about scoring points, facts are ALL that I care about. Yes, please provide information on the last severe natural disaster in which a reasonable level of crime broke out in the aftermath and National Guard troops were sent in with orders to reestablish order and with shoot to kill orders, and then tell me how it turned out. Thanks. Also, I've already addressed your affinity to "facts" in this post. Feel free to scroll up to reference my statements if you feel the need. I've presented plenty of logic, and examined every point and C&P and link that you have presented in depth as well. I'm not the one who presented the early statement of the Police superintendent as evidence but then dismissed the later statement by the same man because he "has lost much of his police force". Perhaps we'll revisit your logic. In the meantime I didn't dismiss Compass' latter statment. I did point out that much of his police force, 200 or so officers as reported, have abandoned the force. It would be hard to find evidence of rapes and shootings when there is no official way to report crimes, when people are moving around from shelter to shelter, and when police were busy fighting what must have been imaginary criminals. I expect that all of this would be even harder when much of the police force is missing. I also suspect that police officers didn't bring along rape kits to substantiate these claimed rapes and I suspect that they haven't gone around asking "Who's been raped." Also, taking Compass' statement, Charmaine Neville's is an unsubstantiated rape. You seem to enjoy doing this tedious tit-for-tat bull**** instead of taking in the big picture. Well, I'm a big picture kind of guy, and frankly you just think a little too small for me. But, I'll tell you what. Time is going to prove whether the violence there was over-exaggerated and over-sensationalized or not. If I'm wrong, I'll come right here and admit it, right here out in the open for all to see. Will you do the same? We'll see.... Lol, thanks for the kind words. Incidentally, this whole thing is not about who is right and who is wrong. It is a shame that you think it is. People have actually suffered and are suffering the things we have discussed. It goes far beyond being right or wrong, but for someone who looks at the big picture, you haven't seemed to grasp that yet. I hope you do. We will indeed see what took place, whether crime was sparse and mild or whether it serious enough for the national guard to be sent in with shoot to kill orders. I'll be here. I realize now that Tim asked me to come chime in on this discussion because I was needed. He knew that I would bring an unflinching, independent, unbiased and open-minded opinion to the discussion, without being swayed by sentiment or intimidated by bullying. He also knew that I would bring an honest viewpoint, one that was capable of adjusting to facts and willing to re-evaluate itself. You see, Tim knows that as much as I love a good verbal sparring match, I am much more concerned with being correct than winning points. Whenever I have to admit I was wrong about something it is a VERY good day, because that means that not only have I learned something, I have CORRECTED my thinking about it. So Mr. Fly, what do you have to say to your forum mates? You showed everybody here FOR WEEKS how much bigger than them you imagined yourself, so now it's time you showed them just how big you really are. So far you're coming up mighty small... :shrug: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Hero1 Posted October 10, 2005 Admin Report Share Posted October 10, 2005 wow thats a lot of quoting :nolachen: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeaceAngel Posted October 10, 2005 Report Share Posted October 10, 2005 You have WAAAAY too much time on your hands... :davidblaine: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cozmo D Posted October 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2005 You have WAAAAY too much time on your hands... :davidblaine: It's called self-employment my dear. I hope that you are blessed with it 1 day. :1-say-yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeaceAngel Posted October 10, 2005 Report Share Posted October 10, 2005 Well I think I could find something better to do with my life than to search the forum for tons of posts by one person just to criticize them :lolsign: jk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxFly Posted October 10, 2005 Report Share Posted October 10, 2005 So Mr. Fly, what do you have to say to your forum mates? You showed everybody here FOR WEEKS how much bigger than them you imagined yourself, so now it's time you showed them just how big you really are. So far you're coming up mighty small... I've already agreed that the reports of violence at the convention center and the superdome were overstated. That's not to say that neither violence nor crimes took place throughout the city. It also doesn't follow that troops should not have been given shoot to kill orders, considering the outcome and how quickly they were able to reestablish some semblence of order in the city without absuing their power. And going back to the purpose of this entire debate, there is still no evidence that racism or the neglect or lack of concern for black people had anything to do with the govenment's slow response. You've also tried to make this entire debate into a "who's smarter" thing from the get go. "Battling intellects" or something of that nature is what I believe you called it. It's certainly not about being bigger than anyone else. A debate is a debate. While a few argued that the delayed response was due to racism, I agrued that it was due to bureaucracy and incompetent govenment officials, while outnumbered. It's a far more serious discussion than who is smarter or who is bigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cozmo D Posted October 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2005 Well I think I could find something better to do with my life than to search the forum for tons of posts by one person just to criticize them :lolsign: jk True that, and I actually have plenty other things that I should be doing as well. :1-say-yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cozmo D Posted October 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2005 So Mr. Fly, what do you have to say to your forum mates? You showed everybody here FOR WEEKS how much bigger than them you imagined yourself, so now it's time you showed them just how big you really are. So far you're coming up mighty small... I've already agreed that the reports of violence at the convention center and the superdome were overstated. That's not to say that neither violence nor crimes took place throughout the city. It also doesn't follow that troops should not have been given shoot to kill orders, considering the outcome and how quickly they were able to reestablish some semblence of order in the city without absuing their power. And going back to the purpose of this entire debate, there is still no evidence that racism or the neglect or lack of concern for black people had anything to do with the govenment's slow response. You've also tried to make this entire debate into a "who's smarter" thing from the get go. "Battling intellects" or something of that nature is what I believe you called it. It's certainly not about being bigger than anyone else. A debate is a debate. While a few argued that the delayed response was due to racism, I agrued that it was due to bureaucracy and incompetent govenment officials, while outnumbered. It's a far more serious discussion than who is smarter or who is bigger. I'm more than willing to concede that you are smarter than me. In fact, I believe that I did so from early on. This thing is about the truth for me, as the truth is what I love above all else. My point from the beginning was that the whole damm country was willing to believe that black people were capable of these horrible atrocities even without corroborating evidence, and that reveals OUR racist perceptions. You went even further by being willing to believe that black people were capable of these horrible atrocities even with EVIDENCE THAT THEY NEVER HAPPENED, and that reveals YOUR racist perceptions. Even now, you stand in favor of the deployment of troops with "shoot to kill" orders when it is obvious that no such thing was needed. Thank God that the only people killed were those who purportedly shot at the engineers. BTW, care to place a wager on what the truth will be of that situation once it is finally investigated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxFly Posted October 10, 2005 Report Share Posted October 10, 2005 (edited) I'm more than willing to concede that you are smarter than me. In fact, I believe that I did so from early on. This thing is about the truth for me, as the truth is what I love above all else. Again... This a far more serious discussion than who is smarter. My point from the beginning was that the whole damm country was willing to believe that black people were capable of these horrible atrocities even without corroborating evidence, and that reveals OUR racist perceptions. You went even further by being willing to believe that black people were capable of these horrible atrocities even with EVIDENCE THAT THEY NEVER HAPPENED, and that reveals YOUR racist perceptions. Even now, you stand in favor of the deployment of troops with "shoot to kill" orders when it is obvious that no such thing was needed. Thank God that the only people killed were those who purportedly shot at the engineers. BTW, care to place a wager on what the truth will be of that situation once it is finally investigated? Here lies the break down in the logic of your "racist perceptions" theory. The race of those in New Orleans had absolutely nothing to do with what I believed to be the case in terms of crime in the city. I wasn't more willing to believe these things because the population was largely black. Your only link to "racist perceptions" is the word "black" in statements such as "You went even further by being willing to believe that black people were capable of these horrible atrocities even with EVIDENCE THAT THEY NEVER HAPPENED..." However, I have not said anything intimating that I believed these things because black people were said to be involved. Concerning the shoot to kill orders... In dealing with the information that officials had at the time and what they were seeing with looting and lawlessness, it was the proper decision. In looking back, officials still aren't sure exactly how much crime was perpetrated throughout the city, but to establish the necessary order that the city needed for those engaged in search and rescue to effectively and efficiently carry out their mission, it was a necessary order, regardless of how unpleasant. I think there is a misunderstanding of exactly what shoot to kill orders actually are. People often associate this with shoot on sight. Shoot to kill orders are usually accompanied with specific rules of engagement, clarifying exatly under what conditions troops are allowed to kill civilians. By and large, the only conditions are those where troops believe themselves to be in danger, under armed attack or where the lives of others are in danger. As we saw in New Orleans, the general rules of engagement were largely followed even in absence of veritable martial law. Given the fact that there was lawlessness in New Orleans, they were given the proper orders. In absence of shoot to kill, there is no other directive. There is no such thing as shoot to injure. Shoot to kill is basically a term used to imply zero tolerance of crime. Even in the absense of specific shoot to kill orders, similar directives or rules of engagement would have been carried out in New Orleans, just quietly. Edited October 10, 2005 by MaxFly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WesSyde Posted October 11, 2005 Report Share Posted October 11, 2005 i believe there was a reason that the other post was closed. this topic is so beaten to death. you both have different opinions and you're not getting anywhere. i definitely commend you for using articles and quotes as evidence, but the bottom line is that you both have different opinions and this discussion will go on forever because you guys can't come to agreement on anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxFly Posted October 11, 2005 Report Share Posted October 11, 2005 i believe there was a reason that the other post was closed. this topic is so beaten to death. you both have different opinions and you're not getting anywhere. i definitely commend you for using articles and quotes as evidence, but the bottom line is that you both have different opinions and this discussion will go on forever because you guys can't come to agreement on anything. Lol, don't you just love the internet. Good times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cozmo D Posted October 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2005 By admiting that the reports were wrong, I've already admited that I was wrong to accept the level of crime that was reported. There are about 4-6 pages in the original thread with my stance. I've admited that with the newest reports concerning the level of crime, my original stance was wrong. Concerning the topic of "racist perceptions," all I can do is state the truth. Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you. I don't know you, you don't know me, and so this opinion of yours is of no significance. You've chosen to make this personal. That's fine. Concerning the govenment's slow response, my prior statements stand. Concerning Kanye's statements on national television, my stance remains the same as well. Concerning my being able to conceive of the actocities human beings can commmit... I've seen enough first hand to realize that human beings are capable of anything, whether good or bad, irrespective of race. As to whether I respect my forum mates, I've made it abundantly clear to everyone my level of respect, both privately and openly. Again, the demagoguery is noted. Thanks.You came at me personally first, just like you did BigTed and others, I just don't back down easily. My whole purpose of capitalizing the word "OUR" when speaking of racist perceptions was to include myself in that boat as well. Maybe you missed that. We actually agreed far more than we disagreed on this whole thing. Our only true differences of opinion were on the level of violence, on the justification of the "shoot to kill" orders and whether racism was involved at any point. We now have a much clearer picture of what the true level of violence was, and I'm sure we can agree to disagree on the "shoot to kill" issue. As for racist involvement, my point was never that the inaction, reaction and slow response were racist, but that OUR racist perceptions were catalytic. Perhaps if you hadn't tried to shut me down in such a condescending manner I would not have responded in kind. I even tried before to bring civility to the discussion, only to find myself enduring your threats. As for my demagoguery, I am nobody here, while you are a Mod. I presented facts at every turn, and they have all stood up. I have used creative, objective and open-minded thinking throughout. How that makes me a demagogue I have no idea. Perhaps your forum mates are used to being treated in that manner, but I'm sorry, I am not. I am both a mod and admin at other forums and I would never treat my forum mates like that. However, I realize that that is me, and I am much more genteel than most. I do realize that more Mods behave as you have than not, so I guess then that I am the one in error. For that I apologize, because I probably should have just accepted it and tried to make my points without returning the vitriol. Hopefully you won't find a need to further insult me. I don't mind you having the last word at all, but I've got this terrible habit of just having to answer back to insults. EZ, Coz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts