Why advocating Nevada National Guard troops to go in? More likely it'll be a Combat Unit with two deployment under its belt. It seems some of you all is advocating killing American "Militia's" but were all up in arms with drone strikes killing Americans in certain organizatiions overseas
Jihadin wrote: Why advocating Nevada National Guard troops to go in? More likely it'll be a Combat Unit with two deployment under its belt. It seems some of you all is advocating killing American "Militia's" but were all up in arms with drone strikes killing Americans in certain organizatiions overseas
Who ever said killing, or even shooting. It's just that a large armed militia is not going to allow themselves to be arrested by a few cops.
LordofHats wrote: Because in the end, extremist conservatives are too busy becoming fascists to explain to anyone why the government is so bad in any sensible way
I love these guys. Best entertainment I never paid for
That's why we need to send in the graboids. It will be like a stage performance of Tremors.
LordofHats wrote: Because in the end, extremist conservatives are too busy becoming fascists to explain to anyone why the government is so bad in any sensible way
I love these guys. Best entertainment I never paid for
That's why we need to send in the graboids. It will be like a stage performance of Tremors.
Who ever said killing, or even shooting. It's just that a large armed militia is not going to allow themselves to be arrested by a few cops.
Armed Militia. Your advocating armed troops to go in and get them. One idiot fires a round and you have a full blown fire fight. Again, the US Government takes another bad publicity roller coaster ride and the US Military will be hammered for shooting on Americans on US soil.
Who ever said killing, or even shooting. It's just that a large armed militia is not going to allow themselves to be arrested by a few cops.
Armed Militia. Your advocating armed troops to go in and get them. One idiot fires a round and you have a full blown fire fight. Again, the US Government takes another bad publicity roller coaster ride and the US Military will be hammered for shooting on Americans on US soil.
I'm ok with that.
Thats not a BLM situation rent situation. Thats at best vigilanteeism, which the KKK did in spades. At worst thats open rebellion.
Send in the state troopers backed by something large, black, and hovering with lots of pointy sticks hanging off of it.
Who ever said killing, or even shooting. It's just that a large armed militia is not going to allow themselves to be arrested by a few cops.
Armed Militia. Your advocating armed troops to go in and get them. One idiot fires a round and you have a full blown fire fight. Again, the US Government takes another bad publicity roller coaster ride and the US Military will be hammered for shooting on Americans on US soil.
I'm ok with that.
Thats not a BLM situation rent situation. Thats at best vigilanteeism, which the KKK did in spades. At worst thats open rebellion.
Send in the state troopers backed by something large, black, and hovering with lots of pointy sticks hanging off of it.
People like them are always talking about black helicopters anyway, might as well let them see one.
Who ever said killing, or even shooting. It's just that a large armed militia is not going to allow themselves to be arrested by a few cops.
Armed Militia. Your advocating armed troops to go in and get them. One idiot fires a round and you have a full blown fire fight. Again, the US Government takes another bad publicity roller coaster ride and the US Military will be hammered for shooting on Americans on US soil.
The converse of that is the American public takes a publicity hit because in a civilized nation governed by the rule of law we allow armed militiamen the right to set up "security" checkpoints to keep American citizens out of a town because they believe that they "don't belong there."
Goddam am I glad I left Nevada all those years ago.
Who ever said killing, or even shooting. It's just that a large armed militia is not going to allow themselves to be arrested by a few cops.
Armed Militia. Your advocating armed troops to go in and get them. One idiot fires a round and you have a full blown fire fight. Again, the US Government takes another bad publicity roller coaster ride and the US Military will be hammered for shooting on Americans on US soil.
I'm ok with that.
Thats not a BLM situation rent situation. Thats at best vigilanteeism, which the KKK did in spades. At worst thats open rebellion.
Send in the state troopers backed by something large, black, and hovering with lots of pointy sticks hanging off of it.
People like them are always talking about black helicopters anyway, might as well let them see one.
Exactly. Lets see how your tacticool combat shorts made in China handles the real thing.
Who ever said killing, or even shooting. It's just that a large armed militia is not going to allow themselves to be arrested by a few cops.
Armed Militia. Your advocating armed troops to go in and get them. One idiot fires a round and you have a full blown fire fight. Again, the US Government takes another bad publicity roller coaster ride and the US Military will be hammered for shooting on Americans on US soil.
So you're saying we should allow armed militias to inspect papers, because we wouldn't want to risk angering them? I mean, that's basically your stance. We can't risk a firefight, so just leave them to their (highly suspect and probably illegal) doings?
I'm pretty sure people also said National Guard, whose job it is to defend US soil.
Because briefcases are more bullet proof than ideas.
Well, they could see fit to bring plenty of ordinance with them. The military types go on about that all the time.
My comment was a V for Vendetta joke.
I know. I was making a play on words with ordinance vs. ordnance, being as the first is something lawyers could theoretically be carrying copies of, while the second is something you might use in a combative situation.
From what I understand the check point....or ECP "Entry Control Point" is on Bundy property right? If so then we need to start gunning down armed security guards using US Army Rangers, 160th Night Stalkers "NSDQ!!" to take them out. Have the 82nd jump in and secure the entire perimeter of Bundy property and go Vietnam style "Kill Zones" to keep the disease in that could be spread by the militia family trying to escape. Technical (Trucks/cars) we can nail with Long Bows and Kiowa's. have the USMC take control of the ports and disarm the USCG and security there. Air Force can swoop in and lock down TSA... ....not a bad idea.
Though you all voicing for combat are like the non military politicians
I know. I was making a play on words with ordinance vs. ordnance, being as the first is something lawyers could theoretically be carrying copies of, while the second is something you might use in a combative situation.
Jihadin wrote: Though you all voicing for combat are like the non military politicians
My opinion that the National Guard is subservient to government control and one of their stated roles is to put down armed insurrections, should it come to that, does not require that I have any military experience. Serving as an infantryman, pilot, or sailor gives me no special insight into how the rule of law works in the US.
I think you should reconsider your position, you're a reasonable dude. Your stance is that we should not send it heavily armed troops because these guys are also heavily armed, and if one of them shoots at a Guardsmen, they will get shot in return. Steamdragon already said it, but... does this sound reasonable? Because it sounds to me like you're essentially advocating that we cede a small bit of the US over to a heavily armed separatist militia. I cannot buy that, no sir. This is not Pakistan or Afghanistan or Somalia where the most heavily armed warlord gets to decide what the law is.
Frazzled gave me a hard time about invoking the Guard and then the Army if needed but I think he may have glossed over that those were the tail end of the steps I would like to see followed in order. The regular army is only the most extreme of resolutions and would require things to be massively more out of hand then they are, as I said; with the Guard only being a step before. As things stand now it is a law enforcement issue. If law enforcement fails to act, or decides that the situation is beyond their control, then things go up from there.
So does that guy ever offer any, you know, proof or is it all just wild conspiracy theories based on "facts" which will probably be disproved very shortly?
Frazzled gave me a hard time about invoking the Guard and then the Army if needed but I think he may have glossed over that those were the tail end of the steps I would like to see followed in order. The regular army is only the most extreme of resolutions and would require things to be massively more out of hand then they are, as I said; with the Guard only being a step before. As things stand now it is a law enforcement issue. If law enforcement fails to act, or decides that the situation is beyond their control, then things go up from there.
Your advocating a real slippery slope there.
Of course you have D-USA mocking me for my combat experience.
He volunteered man!
He has seen things!
YOU WEREN'T THERE!!!!
Be glad you made a choice to go Nursing D-USA. For I never question your knowledge in the medical field
Though quite a few of us has agreed on one thing about you. You have a very "dumb" tendency to try to provoke a negative response from a Vet's. By chance do you also do the same to the Vet's in your VA hospital?
What would happen if the National Guard rolled out against OWS for occupying Federal Property? If it last more then 30+ days then Title 10 orders are issued. If its a Military operation then who controls the detainee's? Can soldiers be prosecuted for "harming" the detainee's? Remember, we fall under UCMJ and not Federal Laws.
Jihadin wrote: Your advocating a real slippery slope there.
Of course you have D-USA mocking me for my combat experience.
He is talking about the person in the above video, Rusty Hill - not you. The gentleman cleaned up garbage for a while, which gave him great insight into the cabal that actually runs Nevada. Wheels within wheels, my friend.
Jihadin wrote: Can soldiers be prosecuted for "harming" the detainee's? Remember, we fall under UCMJ and not Federal Laws.
This exact thing happened in 1992, as well. 2 suspected gang members were engaged and killed by Guardsmen. The LAPD investigated and brought no charges as they were justifiable shoots with many witnesses.
If they were not justifiable - man, I dunno. I'm speculating but I think as you say it would be UCMJ rather than criminal courts. I'm not sure at all though.
Under UCMJ and in accordance with RoE then the killing is justified. They're gang members though. Issue is though its on his property from what I understand. The check point and the militia as long as they're there "screw em" I say. How long before the "militia" members get tired of living rough, in the desert, soon to be summer, and probably not a proper crapper near them.
Though I did notice amongst the Militia is there are former deployed Vet's from OIF and OEF. Neither side going to back down being their both harden towards having weapons pointed at them. It all comes down to nerves then
Adults get twitchy about subjects that are very close to them. I almost caused physical pain to someone once over him questioning my grasp on Nagle's algorithm.
I think it is something we should chuckle at, and then try to remember we're adults and there are things far more important going on right now... like how crazy Bundy is.
Jihadin wrote: I feel the same way when you do it to me D-USA
I have issues with you, lots of them.
They have nothing to do with your status as a vet, nor do they reflect my opinions on vets.
I believe I have made two blanket statement about veterans when talking to you:
1) I don't believe that vets are above the law and that they have to follow the same rules as everybody else. That was during the shutdown.
2) I made an argument about substituting an inflammatory description for the name "veteran" that was inflammatory and stupid on purpose, to show that words have meanings and are important to people.
I put my ass on the line on a regular basis for my patients. You guys see the crap that goes down at some of these VA's and I don't care who I have to piss off I will make sure that gak like that never goes down while I am taking care of these guys.
Whatever issues I have with you are solely because of you. They have jack to do with the uniform you wear or the service you rendered. I don't know if that makes you feel any better but rest assured that I would never treat any of my patients poorly because some vet on the Internet pissed me off.
Then the run with CptJake when I had to back him up when you "insinuated those with us with PTSD should not have weapons.
I'm a big fat democrat, according to some. I wear it like an insult, but I'm certainly a liberal, in a lot of ways more liberal than democrats.
However, I think gun ownership is a good thing. I still also think that PTSD sufferers shouldn't have firearms until diagnosed, evaluated, and undergoing treatment. I also don't think people with metal instability or depression or anything that could cause people to do something dangerous to people unwarranted should have guns. I include myself in that large population I've just cut out. It's why I've not bought one though I want to. I know people who have PTSD who came back from Afghanistan who continued to have guns. They've pulled them on people during episodes, thankfully, without bad endings. It's not a good scene though.
At any rate, I REALLY think you guys shouldn't drag this thread through that. C'mon, sort it out between the two of you.
Jihadin wrote: Change the word "veteran" to "innocent bystander murderer". D-USA
That isn't a link so I have no idea what the context is, and if it is similar to this thread it seems more than likely it would be a misunderstanding than an insult to vets. I think daedalus is probably right that it would be better to deal with this in PM.
Jihadin wrote: those with us with PTSD should not have weapons.
That isn't an out of the realm of being a reasonable proposition, nor is it an insult to vets.
Gist of it was regardless of severity of PTSD. No weapons. CptJake got bent on that one. Everyone that deployed has PTSD. Now to bring this back into topic. Your deploying troops who more likely have PTSD in a desert environment, facing armed individuals, and both sides not backing down. In a DESERT Environment. More likely on Bundy property that D-USA echoing Reid about Armed Insurrection.
LordofHats wrote: Because in the end, extremist conservatives are too busy becoming fascists to explain to anyone why the government is so bad in any sensible way
I love these guys. Best entertainment I never paid for
That's why we need to send in the graboids. It will be like a stage performance of Tremors.
But they could just get onto the heights, those hills aren't alluvial.
What would happen if the National Guard rolled out against OWS for occupying Federal Property? If it last more then 30+ days then Title 10 orders are issued. If its a Military operation then who controls the detainee's? Can soldiers be prosecuted for "harming" the detainee's? Remember, we fall under UCMJ and not Federal Laws.
1. OWS didn't occupy federal property that I am aware of. 2. Protesters who occupy miliatry installations get intercepted by MPs. 3.. Protesters who occupy federal proerty get intercepted by federal Po Po
There is no slippery slope at least in my argument. You cannot let private groups effectively take over areas of the US. That has always garnered a response from either the state of Fed. State troopers, FBI, 82nd division, state guard, and the Army of the Republic all have stopped such activities in the past.
And I'm from the South. We've had federal troops here before.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I mock a video and someone feels persecuted, that same person then goes on to question my professional practice. It's getting pretty old.
In his defense your avatar made of sausages has no boudin sausage in it. I'd question your professional qualifications too...barbarian!
Jihadin wrote: Though you all voicing for combat are like the non military politicians
My opinion that the National Guard is subservient to government control and one of their stated roles is to put down armed insurrections, should it come to that, does not require that I have any military experience. Serving as an infantryman, pilot, or sailor gives me no special insight into how the rule of law works in the US.
I think you should reconsider your position, you're a reasonable dude. Your stance is that we should not send it heavily armed troops because these guys are also heavily armed, and if one of them shoots at a Guardsmen, they will get shot in return. Steamdragon already said it, but... does this sound reasonable? Because it sounds to me like you're essentially advocating that we cede a small bit of the US over to a heavily armed separatist militia. I cannot buy that, no sir. This is not Pakistan or Afghanistan or Somalia where the most heavily armed warlord gets to decide what the law is.
Y'know, I think it's a bit disingenuous to pretend that the, "Hey, don't use the military on this one, it'll get ugly fast," position is the same as suggesting we let the nutjobs do what they want in perpetuity. There are plenty of other ways to eventually resolve this without starting firefights. I know everyone's amped for Waco II: The Son of Reno, but it's not necessarily the optimal way to do it.
So far from what I'm reading is they're performing ECP on Bundy property. On his property being key location. That's like having you own private security doing the same thing on your place. Yet it seems to be grounds to have a military response, intimidation, and throw in escalation.
If we were to enforce the Court Order giving then we would only impound the cattle and that's it. BLM tries to make arrange to sell or terminate said cattle then we will point them in the direction of the Federal Judge so he can clarify more in the Court Order the disposition of the cattle in concern. If the Court Order specify termination then BLM can go right ahead to start shooting the cattle after we ensure the Court Order does not involve the US Military. If it involves sell then the Court order need to specify military Vet can sign off on the health of cattle Might as well use the Military animal Doc's instead of contracting it out for three times the amount.
Forgot the incident of US Marines terminating feral puppies in Afghanistan?
Mind you the Court Order also has to specify this is to be done on Federal land. If this happen on Bundy private property then we are the "evil ones"
If Bundy and Militia moves in force to hamper operation of BLM then Federal LEO can handle it on Federal property
If it happens on Bundy property then we have another Waco on our hand now involving the US Military. Its bad publicity More likely involving questioning what could be possible a unlawful order.
Now as I mention before We fall under UCMJ We do not fall under Federal, State, or local laws. We abide by them of course but once it turns into a Military Operation then more likely we be zip cuffing them pretty much like we would an Insurgent.
If gunfire ensues then we're more likely wait for the threat to expose themselves for a clear shot since we're a bit use to human shield scenario and not perform gunfire that's NYPD trade mark.
Besides "Foreign and Domestic" is in our Oath. One start labeling domestic groups as threats to US security then deploy the military to handle said groups would pretty much be Illegal Orders
Unless actually engage in the overthrow of the US Government.
If the Tea Party becomes a bigger faction in Congress and they get label as a threat because they want to enact laws with issues they are concern about.
If Lobby groups can be label as a Domestic Threat.
If NRA label as a Domestic Threat
If hardline religous groups get label as Domestic Threats
Militia groups in WI and MI get label as Domestic Threats
Jihadin wrote: So far from what I'm reading is they're performing ECP on Bundy property. On his property being key location. That's like having you own private security doing the same thing on your place. Yet it seems to be grounds to have a military response, intimidation, and throw in escalation.
He can do whatever he lawfully likes on his property. My concerns were only covering the impediments to the roundup on federal land.
Jihadin wrote: Besides "Foreign and Domestic" is in our Oath. One start labeling domestic groups as threats to US security then deploy the military to handle said groups would pretty much be Illegal Orders
Unless actually engage in the overthrow of the US Government.
I'm not labeling any groups anything. I'm concerned with the specific people at this location who have rifles pointed at law enforcement officers. Their ideology is irrelevant to me, and I could care less what hobbies they have when they're not engaging in the currently discussed activities.
The armed anti-government play-warriors who built a military force around a racist redneck rancher in Nevada have split into rival factions and are now at the brink of civil war, calling each other crazies and traitors and spreading rumors that Eric Holder planned a drone strike on them.
For nearly a month, organized groups of militiamen as well as gun-toting "independents" have descended on Bunkerville, Nevada, ostensibly to protect Cliven Bundy, the curmudgeon cattleman who grazed his cattle on federal land, owed feds more than a million in fees, and famously shared his opinions on "Negroes" with America.
The feds gave Bundy his cows back and avoided an armed confrontation, but freemen in search of a hot discharge of their firearm loads remain encamped around his land, occasionally setting up checkpoints to intimidate local drivers in the name of freedom.
In this Waco-wacko Woodstock of woolly-bully mountain men, the irony and the insanity spiked last weekend when leaders of the most prominent militia group, the Oath Keepers, began complaining of armed madmen "in the camp running amok." They eventually pulled back from their positions, claiming they had received intelligence suggesting that the Obama administration's attack drones were incoming.
That "redeployment" pissed off other armed patriots who stayed behind in Nevada, who now call the Oath Keepers and their prominent leader, Stewart Rhodes, cowards and traitors who might actually be working for the U.S. government. "They committed a deliberate act of desertion," Blaine Cooper—a de facto leader of the remaining militiamen—said in his own video, embedded at the top of this post.
In the video below and a post on the Oath Keepers site, Rhodes defended his actions, though he now concedes the drone rumor may have been "psyops" by Uncle Sam:
We got the phone call, a guy from Texas called up and said hey, I've got contacts in DOD who've called up and told me that Eric Holder, the AG, has given approval for a drone strike on the ranch, on the entire area, including the Bundys' own personal home.
While trying to vet that "intel," several Oath Keepers attempted to offer an offsite hotel room to a woman who was staying in the Bundy camp with her two children. "She got angry and said that we weren't trusting God enough, and that's her mission to be there, God wanted her to be there," Rhodes says in his video. "And that's fine. But she started yelling and screaming."
That started a series of conflagrations between different militiamen that apparently frustrated Rhodes. In the video he complained of an "increasingly deteriorating situation" in the camps, due to "a bunch of hotheads" whom he thought weren't stable enough to carry out the armed struggle against the United States government in the Nevada desert. "We could see they were a ticking time bomb and they weren't under sufficient command and control," he said. "We wanted to pull out."
The Oath Keepers' website said even though the drone attack hadn't panned out, it was reasonable to fear that it might:
Considering how bizarre that listing of government sins-against-the-people really is, it's not such a far reach to understand why a threat of a war-on-terror-styled attack in retribution for the Bundy cowboy defeat of the BLM gov-thug soldiers earlier this month is not such a far-fetched idea after all.
bs, said Cooper. "You're lucky that you're not getting shot in the back," he says to the "traitors" who left the camp, "because that's what happens to deserters on the battlefield." [Note: It is, in fact, against U.S. military law to shoot a deserter in the back on a battlefield.]
In the video posted by Cooper, he leads several votes against the Oath Keepers with other militia leaders including New Hampshire 9-12 founder Jerry DeLemus and "Booda Bundy Bear," who identifies himself as a "self-employed tattoo artist" on Facebook. Booda recently posted two pictures of himself—one with the Bundy family, at left, and another patrolling the ranch:
In their video, the three men and more than a dozen comrades vote unanimously to brand the Oath Keepers as traitors and deserters, musing on their motives for leaving. Cooper said there were two possibilities:
There is very good evidence to show that the Oathkeepers came here with an intention in mind and that was not to support the objectives, it was to coopt this entire thing and build membership at the very least...
At the very worst, it was provocateurism deliberately sent in here by the other side to drive a wedge into our cohesion. Which would mean that they work for the other side, and they're REALLY a bunch of melon-fethers.
Opinion on who to back in the militias' war of words seemed divided online. "Those oathkeepers just gave up their intel," one friend of Cooper's wrote on his Facebook wall. "now the Pentagon is going to search for the leak.. not smart..and they sound like they are back pedaling on what they did..they are doing what government does best and makes the militia look like a bunch of unorganized thugs."
But Robert Casillas, a fellow Oath Keeper and former Marine, added to Rhodes' account of the mavericks in the desert: "It's a bunch of crackpots… These kids, they're playing war out there, and they don't know what they're doing."
That sounds like the sanest thing anyone in this Twin Peaks of patriotic tinderboxes is capable of saying, though if you watch the video you'll see Casillas didn't seem completely sane while saying it. And in any case, dude believed a drone strike on Nevada ordered by Eric Holder was plausible, so keep that in mind.
Which is a shame. All these hardened breadfruits seem made for each other—from the tactical cargo pants up to the leaky sieves that hold their soggy thoughts and theories mostly in place.
But the conflict lines have been drawn, and now the anti-government resistance and pro-Bundy defense force seems irreparably broken. Sane armed people with a disagreement might be able to find common ground; crazy unarmed people might, too. But disagreements among crazy armed people have a weird way of not ending in a vocal consensus.
"They're not allowed back on this ranch," Cooper said of Stewart's group, angrily raising his arms. "They're to stay the hell out of here under fear of fist fire."
"They're not allowed back on this ranch," Cooper said of Stewart's group, angrily raising his arms. "They're to stay the hell out of here under fear of fist fire."
"They're not allowed back on this ranch," Cooper said of Stewart's group, angrily raising his arms. "They're to stay the hell out of here under fear of fist fire."
"They're not allowed back on this ranch," Cooper said of Stewart's group, angrily raising his arms. "They're to stay the hell out of here under fear of fist fire."
Considering the basic mentality of the militias is paranoid suspicion of authority and a significant degree of distance from reality, it is not surprising they have fallen out with each other.
My teacher once joked that no one would ever need to invade america, They would just wait till we shot ourselves to death over something stupid.
Im starting to think that wasnt a joke
So, an update on everyone's favorite rancher/patriot:
Bundy Ranch's Armed Defenders Seek Welfare to Sit Around Doing Nothing Adam Weinstein
The life of an ever-vigilant anti-government armed patriot is hard. And by hard, I mean dull and unproductive. Also, not very profitable. Maybe that's why all those guys hanging out cleaning their guns in Nevada are now begging hard-working Americans to please give them some money.
One enterprising ranch defender needs funds so badly, he's taken to GoFundMe: (note: this GoFundMe seems to have been pulled)
To all American Patriots:
I am the Team Leader that took Charlie Delta, the black marine, out to Nevada along with two other volunteers that all did an outstanding job at the Bundy Ranch. I understand most of you have come to know Charlie Delta through his expressed views on Cliven Bundy and the good we are all doing as patriots at the ranch. I am coming to you tonight humbly asking for your help. We may be the front line soldiers facing down an overbearing govt bureaucracy, but we are first off family men and women that have our own homes and jobs and families left behind to take on this endeavor. Therefore we have spent our fortunes for freedom and love of our fellow man and need your help to continue our efforts to keep all Americans free from tyranny. Please if you can spare even a few dollars for food, fuel and supplies to continue the stand against tyranny and an overbearing governtment [sic] please help. Even the smallext amount will help keep up the pressure to return this land to the people. I thank you all sincerely for your contribution.
Christopher E Ferrell
United we stand! Divided we fall!
Chris isn't alone in opting for unemployment assistance to play soldier out in the desert. Another self-appointed militia bigwig, Blaine Cooper, took up a GoFundMe collection "for gas, and expenses to help in our fight with the bundies all money will be used for food and gas........." (his page has since been taken down but is cached here.)
How's the welfare drive going? gakky. Cooper, who's been something of a celeb in the cause (and is incensed that prison inmates get free food), made just under $1,500 in a month and a half. Ferrell, meanwhile, has netted $170 from five donors... well short of his $100,000 goal. Sheesh. Why don't these losers get jobs?
These guys are true 'Murcans, and I think we should all pitch in.
I'm a little concerned, though, that by doing so, they might become accustomed to handouts. Indeed, it might foster a culture of dependancy, and then they'll just be sitting around on a porch.
....not a bad idea.
