Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

EDIT: NOTE THE LINK LINKS TO THE VIDEO
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/05/video-teacher-leads-kids-in-singing-as-gunbattle-by-drug-gangs-rages-outside/1

Teacher Martha Ivette Rivera Alanis holds up an award given to her Monday by the governor of Nuevo Leon in Monterrey, Mexico, for her 'civic courage' in calming her students while a gunbattle raged outside the school.
CAPTIONAPA teacher in the northern Mexican city of Monterrey has been honored for "oustanding civic courage" for keeping her 15 primary school students calm by leading them in children's songs while an apparent drug gunbattle raged outside the school.

"Of course, I was afraid, but I tell you, my kids get me through it," 33-year-old Rivera Alanis said after receiving the award from Gov. Rodrigo Medina de la Cruz.

She captured the incident, which occurred Friday, on video on her cellphone. Paramedics later confirmed that the sounds came from gunfire as a gang killed five people at a taxi stand about a block from the Alfonso Reyes school.

Monterrey has been plagued by a wave of drug-related violence, in which gangs linked to drug cartels have staged gunfights, blocked streets and opened fire on civilians, the Associated Press reports.

In the video, Alanis leads the kids in songs from the children's show Barney that talks of sky raining candy.

"If the rain drops were chocolate, I would love to be there, opening my mouth to taste them," the class sings as they hug the floor.

"My only thought was to take their minds off that noise," she told reporters on Monday. "So I thought of that song."

At one point, Alanis is heard telling one worried little girl: "No, my love, nothing is going to happen, just put your little face on the floor."

Well, not quite as epic as if she would have gone out into the middle of the gunfight and beat down the gangsters with nothing but a wooden ruler and an apple.

Still, that's pretty courageous, being able to keep your cool while comforting a group of children. Props to her - she definitely deserves that medal.

Its psychotic crazy. This is why we need our troops back here, protecticing our borders, but I weep for Mexico.

I stayed in Nuevo Leon not long ago, it was a nice city, no problems, and very clean crime wise. I guess that changed now.

I don't like the idea of our military being conflated with border patrol.

Ahtman wrote:I don't like the idea of our military being conflated with border patrol.

Thats what the Iroquois said.

Wait... They sung Chocolate Rain while there was a murder?

Hardcore, Mexico. Respect earned.

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I don't like the idea of our military being conflated with border patrol.

Thats what the Iroquois said.

And they were right to be worried about it weren't they?

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I don't like the idea of our military being conflated with border patrol.

Thats what the Iroquois said.

And they were right to be worried about it weren't they?

Exactly.

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I don't like the idea of our military being conflated with border patrol.

Thats what the Iroquois said.

And they were right to be worried about it weren't they?

Exactly.

So you are equating Native American's with Drug Cartel's now? Classy. If anything, the settlers would be more analogous to the Drug Cartels than the other way around.

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I don't like the idea of our military being conflated with border patrol.

Thats what the Iroquois said.

And they were right to be worried about it weren't they?

Exactly.

So you are equating Native American's with Drug Cartel's now? Classy. If anything, the settlers would be more analogous to the Drug Cartels than the other way around.

No you are. I'm equating the Iroquois with being fine standing citizens and the settlers being analogous to the drug cartels. If they had proper border enforcement, that epic "run to the hills run for your lives" song would never be playing on the oldies station.

As you say, classy.

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I don't like the idea of our military being conflated with border patrol.

Thats what the Iroquois said.

And they were right to be worried about it weren't they?

Exactly.

So you are equating Native American's with Drug Cartel's now? Classy. If anything, the settlers would be more analogous to the Drug Cartels than the other way around.

No you are. I'm equating the Iroquois with being fine standing citizens and the settlers being analogous to the drug cartels. If they had proper border enforcement, that epic "run to the hills run for your lives" song would never be playing on the oldies station.

As you say, classy.

Wow you muddled your point so badly it came across as meaning the complete opposite of what you meant.

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I don't like the idea of our military being conflated with border patrol.

Thats what the Iroquois said.

And they were right to be worried about it weren't they?

Exactly.

So you are equating Native American's with Drug Cartel's now? Classy. If anything, the settlers would be more analogous to the Drug Cartels than the other way around.

No you are. I'm equating the Iroquois with being fine standing citizens and the settlers being analogous to the drug cartels. If they had proper border enforcement, that epic "run to the hills run for your lives" song would never be playing on the oldies station.

As you say, classy.

Wow you muddled your point so badly it came across as meaning the complete opposite of what you meant.

I got the point farely easily.

"I don't like the idea of our military being conflated with border patrol."

"That's what the Iroquois said" means that the Iroquois also said that they don't like the idea of their military being conflated with border control. The historical tones show that they may have made a bad choice by not using their military to patrol their borders. Farely simple to grasp really, kind of like a "That's what she said" joke.

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I don't like the idea of our military being conflated with border patrol.

Thats what the Iroquois said.

And they were right to be worried about it weren't they?

Exactly.

So you are equating Native American's with Drug Cartel's now? Classy. If anything, the settlers would be more analogous to the Drug Cartels than the other way around.

No you are. I'm equating the Iroquois with being fine standing citizens and the settlers being analogous to the drug cartels. If they had proper border enforcement, that epic "run to the hills run for your lives" song would never be playing on the oldies station.

As you say, classy.

Wow you muddled your point so badly it came across as meaning the complete opposite of what you meant.

I think its pretty clear. Has Kermit considered getting glasses? Warning, bifocals take time to adjust to, and theat aquatic environment might be a problem.

Admittedly it would be even more clear if I were able to use my Comanche original homeland security pic but I don't have access to that at work.

How is it clear that when you are talking about using the US army to defend the border then switching to a conflict between the US Army and Iroquois but suddenly the Iroquois are supposed to now represent the US Army as border patrol and the actual US Army is supposed to represent something else.

You have to remember the US Army was in both those so you needed some transitional sentence in there somewhere. As you wrote it the Army is supposed to protect our borders like they protected us from the Iroquois.

That teacher definitely has guts!!

Ahtman wrote:How is it clear that when you are talking about using the US army to defend the border then switching to a conflict between the US Army and Iroquois but suddenly the Iroquois are supposed to now represent the US Army as border patrol and the actual US Army is supposed to represent something else.

You have to remember the US Army was in both those so you needed some transitional sentence in there somewhere. As you wrote it the Army is supposed to protect our borders like they protected us from the Iroquois.

Ahtman thinkest too deep.

To be honest frazzled I think you are backtracking.

As an innocent and disinterested bystander, I hereby declare:

Frazzled: 1
Ahtman: 0

corpsesarefun wrote:To be honest frazzled I think you are backtracking.

You would think wrong. As I said I so need my awesome Comanche homeland security pic right now. Hold on maybe I can find it on Google.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry for the delay. Please go to linky.

http://talkingmess.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Homeland-Security2.jpg

Not only the presence of mind to keep the kids safe and take their minds of the gunfire, but also filmed the event and uploaded it.

Women.
Just have to admire their multitasking skills

Frazzled wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:To be honest frazzled I think you are backtracking.

You would think wrong. As I said I so need my awesome Comanche homeland security pic right now. Hold on maybe I can find it on Google.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry for the delay. Please go to linky.

http://talkingmess.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Homeland-Security2.jpg

I am well aware of the picture, but it doesn't changed that you were talking about using the Army as border patrol and then switched to a subject in which the army was actually used as border patrol but didn't make it clear that you didn't mean to use the border patrol army as an example of a border patrol army but that the people they were fighting against were supposed to represent the need for a border patrol army becuase they were fighting an army that was tasked with patrolling the border.

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:To be honest frazzled I think you are backtracking.

You would think wrong. As I said I so need my awesome Comanche homeland security pic right now. Hold on maybe I can find it on Google.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry for the delay. Please go to linky.

http://talkingmess.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Homeland-Security2.jpg

I am well aware of the picture, but it doesn't changed that you were talking about using the Army as border patrol and then switched to a subject in which the army was actually used as border patrol but didn't make it clear that you didn't mean to use the border patrol army as an example of a border patrol army but that the people they were fighting against were supposed to represent the need for a border patrol army becuase they were fighting an army that was tasked with patrolling the border.

Evidently Kermit can't get off when Kermit misread a post...COme on Kermit, keep up frog boy. Mmmm....froglegs...

But to the topic, that teacher needs a medal. This is someone you want around in a crisis.

Frazzled wrote:Evidently Kermit can't get off when Kermit misread a post...COme on Kermit, keep up frog boy. Mmmm....froglegs...

And evidently Dog Face can't admit he could have been clearer in his writing. It isn't the first tie Dog Face has exhibited the inability to recognize that he may have illustrated a point better or used an improper analogy.

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Evidently Kermit can't get off when Kermit misread a post...COme on Kermit, keep up frog boy. Mmmm....froglegs...

And evidently Dog Face can't admit he could have been clearer in his writing. It isn't the first tie Dog Face has exhibited the inability to recognize that he may have illustrated a point better or used an improper analogy.

Thats not DogFace! Thats TBone the Terror, back when he had all his teeth!

But I think I noted your point previously:

Admittedly it would be even more clear if I were able to use my Comanche original homeland security pic but I don't have access to that at work. [/qauote]
Amazingly I'm less earnest in my statement when you immediately dropped the "classy" crack at me.

Ahtman, I understood Fraz's point pefectly.
You stated you didn't want the military blended into border patrol.
Fraz then made the comment of "Thats what the Iroquois said," implying that they also didn't want their soldiers pulling border patrol duties.
The only one here that seems confused by this exchange is you.

Can we, you know, discuss the topic now guys (and frogs)?

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I don't like the idea of our military being conflated with border patrol.

Thats what the Iroquois said.

I'm making this point after reading through the clarification, just to be clear. Reading this post alone, both interpretations have merit, though I never give Fraz the benefit of doubt, so I probably would have drawn the same conclusion as Ahtman.

Anyway, the defeated and fractured Iroquois Confederacy would have seen a superior outcome during Indian Removal if they had used an army (where they would even get this army is another matter) to try and prevent the US army from enforcing its will? Or are you claiming that the Confederacy was fractured because its army was on campaign during the Revolutionary War? If the latter is your claim, then you must have a dim view of the American rebels, as many colonial cities suffered due to the fact that its armies were on campaign.

I'm also having a hard time seeing how you can compare militarized violence as seen in warfare, where both sides are attempting to take and hold territory, to marauding drug cartels that are chasing the security of their income, and not territorial control (ie. governance). I know you were probably trying to make a categorical point regarding the deployment of forces, and how its bad, but it would be just as easy to dig up examples of how not properly exerting force on the international scene is also bad.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Can we, you know, discuss the topic now guys (and frogs)?

Discuss the singing kids? I'll get that over with right now. It will go like this:

P1: She's awesome, give her a medal!

P2: Meh, I don't care.

P3: She should have done X instead.

Or the actual reason you posted this, border control, and the use of the Army in the security of it.

helgrenze wrote:Ahtman, I understood Fraz's point pefectly.

You understood option A out of option A and B. I'll get you cookie if you like.

helgrenze wrote:You stated you didn't want the military blended into border patrol.

Actually I said I don;'t want them conflated, which is not quite the same thing. Putting military units into the Border Patrol is not the same as treating the military as if it is the Border Patrol.

helgrenze wrote:Fraz then made the comment of "Thats what the Iroquois said," implying that they also didn't want their soldiers pulling border patrol duties.

That could just as easily meant that they didn't want the US Army patrolling the frontier/borderlands. Which of course is something they actually did not want, much like cartels would prefer the US not Militarize the border, not that it would stop them it is just that it is one more thing to deal with and if you had to choose between 1 problem or 2 you would choose 1.

helgrenze wrote:The only one here that seems confused by this exchange is you.

Just becuase I was the first to respond to it doesn't mean that and I seriously doubt I was the only one or would have been the only one. The problem with the posting isn't that doesn't make his point, it is that it can easily make both. An argument that that can reasonably be taken two opposite ways is pretty much the definition of a muddled argument as you can't clearly define what it means. Now he clarified later but the initial argument was not clear and made both points simultaneously.

Ahtman wrote:

helgrenze wrote:Ahtman, I understood Fraz's point pefectly.

You understood option A out of option A and B. I'll get you cookie if you like.

helgrenze wrote:You stated you didn't want the military blended into border patrol.

Actually I said I don;'t want them conflated, which is not quite the same thing. Putting military units into the Border Patrol is not the same as treating the military as if it is the Border Patrol.

helgrenze wrote:Fraz then made the comment of "Thats what the Iroquois said," implying that they also didn't want their soldiers pulling border patrol duties.

That could just as easily meant that they didn't want the US Army patrolling the frontier/borderlands. Which of course is something they actually did not want, much like cartels would prefer the US not Militarize the border, not that it would stop them it is just that it is one more thing to deal with and if you had to choose between 1 problem or 2 you would choose 1.

helgrenze wrote:The only one here that seems confused by this exchange is you.

Just becuase I was the first to respond to it doesn't mean that and I seriously doubt I was the only one or would have been the only one. The problem with the posting isn't that doesn't make his point, it is that it can easily make both. An argument that that can reasonably be taken two opposite ways is pretty much the definition of a muddled argument as you can't clearly define what it means. Now he clarified later but the initial argument was not clear and made both points simultaneously.

As you say...classy.