BURNS, Ore. (AP) — A peaceful protest Saturday in support of an eastern Oregon ranching family facing jail time for arson was followed shortly afterward by an occupation of a building at a national wildlife refuge.
Ammon Bundy, the son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was involved in a standoff with the government over grazing rights, told The Oregonian he and two of his brothers were among a group of dozens of people occupying the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
Bundy posted a video on his Facebook page asking for people to come help him. Below the video is this statement: "**ALL PATRIOTS ITS TIME TO STAND UP NOT STAND DOWN!!! WE NEED YOUR HELP!!! COME PREPARED."
Ammon Bundy said the group planned to stay at the refuge indefinitely.
"We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," Ammon Bundy said. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute."
An Idaho militia leader who helped organize the earlier march said he knew nothing about activities after a parade of militia members and local residents in Burns walked past the sheriff's office and the home of Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son Steven.
Beth Anne Steele, an FBI spokeswoman in Portland, told The Associated Press the agency was aware of the situation at the national wildlife refuge. She made no further comment.
Some local residents feared the Saturday rally would involve more than speeches, flags and marching. But the only real additions to that list seemed to be songs, flowers and pennies.
As marchers reached the courthouse, they tossed hundreds of pennies at the locked door. Their message: civilians were buying back their government. After the march passed, two girls swooped in to scavenge the pennies.
A few blocks away, Hammond and his wife Susan greeted marchers, who planted flower bouquets in the snow. They sang some songs, Hammond said a few words, and the protesters marched back to their cars.
Dwight Hammond has said he and his son plan to peacefully report to prison Jan. 4 as ordered by the judge.
Dwight Hammond, 73, and Steven Hammond, 46, said they lit the fires in 2001 and 2006 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires.
The two were convicted of the arsons three years ago and served time — the father three months, the son one year. But a judge ruled their terms were too short under federal law and ordered them back to prison for about four years each.
The decision has generated controversy in a remote part of the state.
In particular, the Hammonds' new sentences touched a nerve with far right groups who repudiate federal authority.
Ammon Bundy and a handful of militiamen from other states arrived last month in Burns, some 60 miles from the Hammond ranch.
In an email to supporters, Ammon Bundy criticized the U.S. government for a failed legal process.
edit: title edited by motyak because I hadn't the foggiest what a 'doestic' terrorist was
BURNS, Ore. (AP) — A peaceful protest Saturday in support of an eastern Oregon ranching family facing jail time for arson was followed shortly afterward by an occupation of a building at a national wildlife refuge.
Ammon Bundy, the son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was involved in a standoff with the government over grazing rights, told The Oregonian (http://is.gd/bK7d4E ) that he and two of his brothers were among a group of dozens of people occupying the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
Bundy posted a video on his Facebook page asking for people to come help him. He said "this is not a time to stand down. It's a time to stand up and come to Harney County," where Burns is located. Below the video is this statement: "(asterisk)(asterisk)ALL PATRIOTS ITS TIME TO STAND UP NOT STAND DOWN!!! WE NEED YOUR HELP!!! COME PREPARED."
Ammon Bundy said the group planned to stay at the refuge indefinitely. "We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," Ammon Bundy said. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute."
Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward told people to stay away from the building as authorities work to defuse the situation, the Oregonian reported.
"A collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a solution. For the time being please stay away from that area. More information will be provided as it becomes available. Please maintain a peaceful and united front and allow us to work through this situation," Ward said in a statement.
An Idaho militia leader who helped organize the earlier march said he knew nothing about activities after a parade of militia members and local residents in Burns walked past the sheriff's office and the home of Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son Steven.
Ammon Bundy's father, Cliven Bundy, told Oregon Public Broadcasting on Saturday night that he had nothing to do with the takeover of the building.
Bundy said his son felt obligated to intervene on behalf of the Hammonds.
"That's not exactly what I thought should happen, but I didn't know what to do," he said. "You know, if the Hammonds wouldn't stand, if the sheriff didn't stand, then, you know, the people had to do something. And I guess this is what they did decide to do. I wasn't in on that."
His son Ammon told him they are committed to staying in the building, Cliven Bundy told Oregon Public Broadcasting.
"He told me that they were there for the long run. I guess they figured they're going to be there for whatever time it takes_and I don't know what that means," Cliven Bundy said. "I asked him, 'Well how long can ya, how long you going to stand out there?' He just told me it was for long term."
Beth Anne Steele, an FBI spokeswoman in Portland, told The Associated Press the agency was aware of the situation at the national wildlife refuge. She made no further comment.
Some local residents feared the Saturday rally would involve more than speeches, flags and marching. But the only real additions to that list seemed to be songs, flowers and pennies.
As marchers reached the courthouse, they tossed hundreds of pennies at the locked door. Their message: civilians were buying back their government. After the march passed, two girls swooped in to scavenge the pennies.
A few blocks away, Hammond and his wife, Susan, greeted marchers, who planted flower bouquets in the snow. They sang some songs, Hammond said a few words, and the protesters marched back to their cars.
Dwight Hammond has said he and his son plan to peacefully report to prison Jan. 4 as ordered by the judge.
Dwight Hammond, 73, and Steven Hammond, 46, said they lit the fires in 2001 and 2006 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires.
The two were convicted of the arsons three years ago and served time — the father three months, the son one year. But a judge ruled their terms were too short under federal law and ordered them back to prison for about four years each.
The decision has generated controversy in a remote part of the state.
In particular, the Hammonds' new sentences touched a nerve with far right groups who repudiate federal authority.
Ammon Bundy and a handful of militiamen from other states arrived last month in Burns, some 60 miles from the Hammond ranch.
In an email to supporters, Ammon Bundy criticized the U.S. government for a failed legal process.
Edit: I just noticed that the HuffPo article sourced the AP article, so it's a bit of a double post. But looks like the AP source added more info, so I'll leave it.
Only way this ends without people dying is, unfortunately, by a crazy militia to grow some sense and stop being crazy, and since when is that something crazy militias do?
Only way this ends without people dying is, unfortunately, by a crazy militia to grow some sense and stop being crazy, and since when is that something crazy militias do?
Time for a good old fashioned siege, starve them out!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Is this the same Bundy guy from that dakka thread ages ago? The one Frazz wanted to run over with an Abrahams tank or something?
I am sure government will treat this in exactly the same way they would if it was a group of militant islamists protesting for the implementation of sharia law in the US.
Dreadwinter wrote: Why would the Bundy's do all this for two people that are voluntarily reporting to prison?
This is what the Bundy's say is happening;
“In public, they haven’t asked for our help,” Bundy told OPB. “In private, we’re still needed. I talked to Dwight Hammond…for probably close to an hour. His conclusion is basically, ‘I do not want to be shot in the head.’ He had fear that if he actually rejected what was going on, and stood up for the abuse in what was going on, there would be somebody who would actually kill him. Fear, is what their problem is.”
This will definitely end differently. The Feds wanted to avoid a shoot out with a bunch of loonies at Bundy's private residence for risk of the PR fallout ala Waco Texas, but occupying a Federal building by force is a very different situation. I'd argue the government's previous attempt to end the situation peacefully has emboldened this behavior from this particular group. They negotiated with 'terrorists' as it were, and now those terrorists have gone off and done something even worse.
Dreadwinter wrote: Why would the Bundy's do all this for two people that are voluntarily reporting to prison?
This is what the Bundy's say is happening;
“In public, they haven’t asked for our help,” Bundy told OPB. “In private, we’re still needed. I talked to Dwight Hammond…for probably close to an hour. His conclusion is basically, ‘I do not want to be shot in the head.’ He had fear that if he actually rejected what was going on, and stood up for the abuse in what was going on, there would be somebody who would actually kill him. Fear, is what their problem is.”
This will definitely end differently. The Feds wanted to avoid a shoot out with a bunch of loonies at Bundy's private residence for risk of the PR fallout ala Waco Texas, but occupying a Federal building by force is a very different situation. I'd argue the government's previous attempt to end the situation peacefully has emboldened this behavior from this particular group. They negotiated with 'terrorists' as it were, and now those terrorists have gone off and done something even worse.
No sympathy here. It seems like they think they are poster children for a revolution and want to act the part.
Can someone explain how this group are terrorists? Who are they terrorising? Have they attacked civilians or done any other terrorist acts? I can't find anything. All they seem to do is protesting. As long as they stay peaceful, they are not terrorists (a terrorists is someone who uses terror to achieve political goals, not any anti-government protester as some seem to think) If they occupy a building, try to negotiate first, and if that fails, just ignore them. Without (media) attention, they will get tired after a while and leave.
Iron_Captain wrote: Can someone explain how this group are terrorists? Who are they terrorising? Have they attacked civilians or done any other terrorist acts? I can't find anything. All they seem to do is protesting. As long as they stay peaceful, they are not terrorists (a terrorists is someone who uses terror to achieve political goals, not any anti-government protester as some seem to think) If they occupy a building, try to negotiate first, and if that fails, just ignore them. Without (media) attention, they will get tired after a while and leave.
They have illegally occupied public property, armed with guns, and threatened violence to anyone seeking to legally remove them. They are specifically seeking an armed confrontation with the agents of the democratically elected federal government. They are only peaceful now because they haven't been challenged. How is that peaceful? 'Come anywhere near us, in pursuit of the law, and we'll shoot you' isn't peaceful, it's a direct threat.
They are seditionists, traitors and most certainly terrorists. They should be removed with all necessary force.
First off, I don;t approve of this group's actions, so keep that in mind.
But I do have a few questions.
Should the Hammonds and their supporters just bend over and accept the Fed gov't stepping in and sending them back to jail after they already served the sentence the judge who heard the case had handed down? That whole part of this shouldn't really sit well with any citizen here in the US.
Folks are calling for the gov't to move in and 'take them out' and similarly phrased violent acts. Is occupying an empty building in the woods causing that much of an inconvenience? The Occupy Wall Street group and their associated groups around the country were a lot more harmful to the local businesses and residents than these guys seem to be at this point, and I would bet many of you calling for this group to be taken out by the Feds acted appalled when local cops went into the Occupy areas and pepper sprayed some protestor.
Folks are calling for the gov't to move in and 'take them out' and similarly phrased violent acts. Is occupying an empty building in the woods causing that much of an inconvenience? The Occupy Wall Street group and their associated groups around the country were a lot more harmful to the local businesses and residents than these guys seem to be at this point, and I would bet many of you calling for this group to be taken out by the Feds acted appalled when local cops went into the Occupy areas and pepper sprayed some protestor.
The occupy movement were lentil guzzling peaceful incense burning hippies, all they did was smell the place up a bit. These guys are armed and threatening violence.
To the best of my knowledge, the Occupy movement was non-violent. These people are specifically threatening violence against anyone that tries to remove them.
So that would be the difference. Specific, armed threats, compared to non-violence. Yes, they are expected to abide by the legal decisions of the courts. It's kind of what the rule of law implies. That you don't get to say, "Go feth yourself. I gots a gun, so you can't make me." It's part of the package when you live in a society.
As for demands, they're occupying the building because some people were imprisoned. Hypothetically, they'd have no reason to occupy upon the release of the prisoners. It would make sense that their demands are for the release of what they consider to be political prisoners.
They have illegally occupied public property, armed with guns, and threatened violence to anyone seeking to legally remove them. They are specifically seeking an armed confrontation with the agents of the democratically elected federal government. They are only peaceful now because they haven't been challenged. How is that peaceful? 'Come anywhere near us, in pursuit of the law, and we'll shoot you' isn't peaceful, it's a direct threat.
They are seditionists, traitors and most certainly terrorists. They should be removed with all necessary force.
You mean they started the revolution that all the 2nd amendment guys have been waiting for. Why isn't everyone grabbing their guns and going to help? It's why you have the 2nd, to stand up to a tyrannical government right? Yet here everyone is calling them terrorist and expecting them to die. weird.
seems the dream of owning a gun to protect yourself from the government is over.
Iron_Captain wrote: Can someone explain how this group are terrorists? Who are they terrorising? Have they attacked civilians or done any other terrorist acts? I can't find anything. All they seem to do is protesting. As long as they stay peaceful, they are not terrorists (a terrorists is someone who uses terror to achieve political goals, not any anti-government protester as some seem to think) If they occupy a building, try to negotiate first, and if that fails, just ignore them. Without (media) attention, they will get tired after a while and leave.
They have illegally occupied public property, armed with guns, and threatened violence to anyone seeking to legally remove them. They are specifically seeking an armed confrontation with the agents of the democratically elected federal government. They are only peaceful now because they haven't been challenged. How is that peaceful? 'Come anywhere near us, in pursuit of the law, and we'll shoot you' isn't peaceful, it's a direct threat.
They are seditionists, traitors and most certainly terrorists. They should be removed with all necessary force.
That is not terrorism. They are protesting, and threaten to use violence. Violent protesting (which so far they have not even done) is not terrorism, it is an extremely common way of protesting (before the 20th century protests were pretty much violent by default). If they were terrorists, they would attack the nearest town and threaten to kill a civilian for every hour their demands are not met or something like that. Occupying a building is just a common way of protesting, not terrorism. Also, most protests and strikes etc. are illegal, but that does not neccesarily make them bad. Legal and illegal are not the same as good and bad.
They have illegally occupied public property, armed with guns, and threatened violence to anyone seeking to legally remove them. They are specifically seeking an armed confrontation with the agents of the democratically elected federal government. They are only peaceful now because they haven't been challenged. How is that peaceful? 'Come anywhere near us, in pursuit of the law, and we'll shoot you' isn't peaceful, it's a direct threat.
They are seditionists, traitors and most certainly terrorists. They should be removed with all necessary force.
You mean they started the revolution that all the 2nd amendment guys have been waiting for. Why isn't everyone grabbing their guns and going to help? It's why you have the 2nd, to stand up to a tyrannical government right? Yet here everyone is calling them terrorist and expecting them to die. weird.
seems the dream of owning a gun to protect yourself from the government is over.
Yeah, it is one of the big mysteries of US culture for me. They have a constitutional right to have weapons for rising up against the government if it has become tyrannical, yet when people make use of this right, they are terrorists. One of the hallmarks of a tyrannical regime is designating all protesters and opponents as terrorists or other forms of enemies of the people... People should be calling for negotiation and democratic debate with this group, not use of force.
greatbigtree wrote: To the best of my knowledge, the Occupy movement was non-violent. These people are specifically threatening violence against anyone that tries to remove them.
So that would be the difference. Specific, armed threats, compared to non-violence. Yes, they are expected to abide by the legal decisions of the courts. It's kind of what the rule of law implies. That you don't get to say, "Go feth yourself. I gots a gun, so you can't make me." It's part of the package when you live in a society.
Okay, aside form the fact that the Occupy was not all nonviolent (hurting folks livelihoods is not peaceful by any means), didn't they basically tell the gov't 'Go feth yourself?" What is the difference? They did it in a bigger and much much more disruptive way than this group.
And of course I could have used the obvious examples of the Black Lives Matter associated crowds that burned Ferguson and other places as groups that DID commit openly violent acts as well as call for the killing of cops country wide.
greatbigtree wrote: To the best of my knowledge, the Occupy movement was non-violent. These people are specifically threatening violence against anyone that tries to remove them.
So that would be the difference. Specific, armed threats, compared to non-violence. Yes, they are expected to abide by the legal decisions of the courts. It's kind of what the rule of law implies. That you don't get to say, "Go feth yourself. I gots a gun, so you can't make me." It's part of the package when you live in a society.
Okay, aside form the fact that the Occupy was not all nonviolent (hurting folks livelihoods is not peaceful by any means), didn't they basically tell the gov't 'Go feth yourself?" What is the difference? They did it in a bigger and much much more disruptive way than this group.
And of course I could have used the obvious examples of the Black Lives Matter associated crowds that burned Ferguson and other places as groups that DID commit openly violent acts as well as call for the killing of cops country wide.
where do you find this nonsense? faux news?
occupy protested the bail out of the banks, that is all. they didn't disrupt anything, nor hurt any ones livelihood. hell I bet the local pizza place had record profits while it was going on.
The BLM crowd is not a unified group so using examples of things certain people did while claiming to be part of the movement is in no ways comparable to this group.
I believe this is what is known as a false equivalency...
CptJake wrote:Should the Hammonds and their supporters just bend over and accept the Fed gov't stepping in and sending them back to jail after they already served the sentence the judge who heard the case had handed down? That whole part of this shouldn't really sit well with any citizen here in the US.
Sounds like another case of mandatory minimums resulting in screwing people over.
Granted, I say that while feeling that 5 years is a reasonable sentence for committing arson, and that 3-4 months is tantamount to not being punished at all.
Is occupying an empty building in the woods causing that much of an inconvenience?
We're talking about guys who have previously bragged about pointing guns at federal agents, who are now occupying a government building and threatening violence against anyone who tries to remove them. Inconvenience? Really, that's you're argument?
AlmightyWalrus wrote:I actually think Iron_Captain has a point here: what political demans have they made?
How is occupying a government building and threatening violence in response to a court decision not a political demand in itself?
Folks are calling for the gov't to move in and 'take them out' and similarly phrased violent acts. Is occupying an empty building in the woods causing that much of an inconvenience? The Occupy Wall Street group and their associated groups around the country were a lot more harmful to the local businesses and residents than these guys seem to be at this point, and I would bet many of you calling for this group to be taken out by the Feds acted appalled when local cops went into the Occupy areas and pepper sprayed some protestor.
The occupy movement were lentil guzzling peaceful incense burning hippies, all they did was smell the place up a bit. These guys are armed and threatening violence.
As well as illegally tie up areas, block places of business, leave cities with millions in clean up bills, etc.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:I actually think Iron_Captain has a point here: what political demans have they made?
How is occupying a government building and threatening violence in response to a court decision not a political demand in itself?
They haven't actually articulated why they're doing it yet though, have they? I couldn't see anything in the article linked in the OP that wasn't people assuming that it's linked to the court case.
That said, I'm not going to blame anyone for calling them terrorists, because it's pretty damn likely that what you're saying is correct, but we don't actually know that yet.
Folks are calling for the gov't to move in and 'take them out' and similarly phrased violent acts. Is occupying an empty building in the woods causing that much of an inconvenience? The Occupy Wall Street group and their associated groups around the country were a lot more harmful to the local businesses and residents than these guys seem to be at this point, and I would bet many of you calling for this group to be taken out by the Feds acted appalled when local cops went into the Occupy areas and pepper sprayed some protestor.
The occupy movement were lentil guzzling peaceful incense burning hippies, all they did was smell the place up a bit. These guys are armed and threatening violence.
As well as illegally tie up areas, block places of business, leave cities with millions in clean up bills, etc.
Which is entirely the same as armed insurrection...
Kilkrazy wrote: Arson is normally considered a very serious crime.
Why would these people want to support convicted arsonists, or is it just that they were convicted by "the government" (even though they weren't.)
Farmers and ranchers do it as a way to clear out plants that start getting into grazing or growing areas. I used to burn crap off the fields on the family farm after harvesting as a way to clear them for the next planting in spring.
We used to burn off stubble and unwanted straw after the harvest when I was a youngster, but it had to be stopped because of various problems, and no-one does it now in the UK.
It was great fun and looked fantastic in the evenings with the rows of fire going up and down the hills.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: They haven't actually articulated why they're doing it yet though, have they? I couldn't see anything in the article linked in the OP that wasn't people assuming that it's linked to the court case
They've specifically related their occupation to the Hammond court decision. I thought the OP articles made that clear, but for more;
Armed protesters have taken over a building in a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon, accusing officials of unfairly punishing ranchers who refused to sell their land.
One them is Ammon Bundy, the 40-year-old son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who is well-known for anti-government action.
He spoke by phone to CNN on Sunday at 8 a.m. ET. Asked several times what he and those with him want, he answered in vague terms, saying that they want the federal government to restore the "people's constitutional rights."
"This refuge -- it has been destructive to the people of the county and to the people of the area," he said.
When asked what it would take for the protesters to leave, Bundy did not offer specifics. He said he and those with him are prepared to stay put for days or weeks.
"We feel that we will occupy this as long as necessary," he said.
"We are using the wildlife refuge as a place for individuals across the United States to come and assist in helping the people of Harney County claim back their lands and resources," he said.
It's a continuation of the family's vendetta against the BLM and a direct response to the Hammond court case. Beyond that however, there's probably a point to be made in that these guys don't really have a point. They seem to want nothing more than to live the dream of being the guys who spark the revolution that ends the big bad govment, and their pursuit of this dream is little more than the pursuit of the dream.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: Did you burn public land? And 139 acres of it also almost killing some people?
greatbigtree wrote: To the best of my knowledge, the Occupy movement was non-violent. These people are specifically threatening violence against anyone that tries to remove them.
So that would be the difference. Specific, armed threats, compared to non-violence. Yes, they are expected to abide by the legal decisions of the courts. It's kind of what the rule of law implies. That you don't get to say, "Go feth yourself. I gots a gun, so you can't make me." It's part of the package when you live in a society.
Okay, aside form the fact that the Occupy was not all nonviolent (hurting folks livelihoods is not peaceful by any means), didn't they basically tell the gov't 'Go feth yourself?" What is the difference? They did it in a bigger and much much more disruptive way than this group.
And of course I could have used the obvious examples of the Black Lives Matter associated crowds that burned Ferguson and other places as groups that DID commit openly violent acts as well as call for the killing of cops country wide.
where do you find this nonsense? faux news?
occupy protested the bail out of the banks, that is all. they didn't disrupt anything, nor hurt any ones livelihood. hell I bet the local pizza place had record profits while it was going on.
Oh good, many of them were arrested so you shouldn't have any problem with these yahoos getting the same treatment.
http://occupyarrests.moonfruit.com/
And none of those people were armed and threatening violence.
Kilkrazy wrote: We used to burn off stubble and unwanted straw after the harvest when I was a youngster, but it had to be stopped because of various problems, and no-one does it now in the UK.
It was great fun and looked fantastic in the evenings with the rows of fire going up and down the hills.
Yep, we'd get everything in various piles on the fields and light it up. There'd be Moose coming out of the woods to see what we were doing, sometimes not more than a few feet away. They'd just stand and look, then meander back into the brush.
That burning stubble sounds like it was a sight to see.
If they have no hostages, just wait them out - cut the electricity and water. Eventually they're going to get hungry.
When they do come out, charge them all with seditious conspiracy.
That being said, I'd like to know more about why these 2 served the time they were sentenced and now are being called upon to serve more time for the same conviction.
Ouze wrote: If they have no hostages, just wait them out - cut the electricity and water. Eventually they're going to get hungry.
When they do come out, charge them all with seditious conspiracy.
That being said, I'd like to know more about why these 2 served the time they were sentenced and now are being called upon to serve more time for the same conviction.
That's a point of interest for me also. If there's a minimum sentence mandated, why was that not given during the sentencing?
Ouze wrote: That being said, I'd like to know more about why these 2 served the time they were sentenced and now are being called upon to serve more time for the same conviction.
"By law, arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. When the Hammonds were originally sentenced, they argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional and the trial court agreed and imposed sentences well below what the law required based upon the jury’s verdicts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the federal law, reasoning that “given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.”"
Ouze wrote: That being said, I'd like to know more about why these 2 served the time they were sentenced and now are being called upon to serve more time for the same conviction.
"By law, arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. When the Hammonds were originally sentenced, they argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional and the trial court agreed and imposed sentences well below what the law required based upon the jury’s verdicts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the federal law, reasoning that “given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.”"
That being said, I'd like to know more about why these 2 served the time they were sentenced and now are being called upon to serve more time for the same conviction.
This... that's what interests me.
Initially, is sounded like maybe they didn't serve the full term and was on probation... and that they're going back because of some probation violation.
But, I have seen anything whatsoever that indicates this.
Ouze wrote: That being said, I'd like to know more about why these 2 served the time they were sentenced and now are being called upon to serve more time for the same conviction.
"By law, arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. When the Hammonds were originally sentenced, they argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional and the trial court agreed and imposed sentences well below what the law required based upon the jury’s verdicts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the federal law, reasoning that “given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.”"
On the other hand it's not totally without precedent, I know for sure of one recent case where a dude was sentenced super light, the girl he raped killed herself, and the ensuing furor revealed that it wasn't the mandatory minimum and he was re-sentenced... but this guy was already in jail. Even if it's legal, that's pretty messed up.
What this comes down to is that these people set fires that accidentally or deliberately burnt out areas of public land, and therefore should by law have received a minimum sentence of five years.
If their fires had only burnt out areas of their neighbours' lands, the penalty would probably have been lower.
Ouze wrote: That being said, I'd like to know more about why these 2 served the time they were sentenced and now are being called upon to serve more time for the same conviction.
"By law, arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. When the Hammonds were originally sentenced, they argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional and the trial court agreed and imposed sentences well below what the law required based upon the jury’s verdicts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the federal law, reasoning that “given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.”"
It wasn't a mistrial, there is no question about their guilt and even the guys admit that. The mandatory minimum wasn't followed and that was fixed by the upper court.
I'm sure the families of firejumpers would be ok if their little fire hadn't been caught before it burned a few hundred thousand acres. Sure, let's just give them a light slap on the wrist rather than the mandatory minimum.
In a week where Obama is threatening to executive order his way to gun control, I do feel sorry for sensible, law abiding, gun owners, particularly my fellow dakka members, who must be tearing their hair out at these idiots parading around with guns, and giving responsible gun owners a bad name...
In a week where Obama is threatening to executive order his way to gun control, I do feel sorry for sensible, law abiding, gun owners, particularly my fellow dakka members, who must be tearing their hair out at these idiots parading around with guns, and giving responsible gun owners a bad name...
That's what I was thinking. These idiots could be a windfall for Obama's move against guns. If only they didn't have those damned pistol grips on their rifles!
I doubt that'll happen. Most people have the sense to be scared to death of people like this but also know that they don't represent most gun owners. EDIT: Not that I don't expect someone to try and make more of it there than there is.
In a week where Obama is threatening to executive order his way to gun control, I do feel sorry for sensible, law abiding, gun owners, particularly my fellow dakka members, who must be tearing their hair out at these idiots parading around with guns, and giving responsible gun owners a bad name...
That's what I was thinking. These idiots could be a windfall for Obama's move against guns. If only they didn't have those damned pistol grips on their rifles!
I'm not a gun owner (well, I'm an air gun owner) but I can tell the difference between a responsible owner and a bunch of wound-up, weirded-out paranoid anti-gov windbags.
Do people think this is part of the fairly wide-spread general disillusionment with ineffective and unprepresentative democracy that we see in many western countries, or a group of "individualists" who don't want to be accountable to anyone except their own selves?
Or maybe they are just stupid and ignorant? It is not unknown.
So the right wing was just criticizing Obama for not following through with mandatory minimums for non violent drug offenders, but are also critical of mandatory minimums being enforced as in this case? That's not hypocritical at all.
It's almost as if mandatory minimums are a horrible law.
For a good laugh I recommend perusing the comments section on Yahoo about this situation.
In a week where Obama is threatening to executive order his way to gun control, I do feel sorry for sensible, law abiding, gun owners, particularly my fellow dakka members, who must be tearing their hair out at these idiots parading around with guns, and giving responsible gun owners a bad name...
That's what I was thinking. These idiots could be a windfall for Obama's move against guns. If only they didn't have those damned pistol grips on their rifles!
I'm not a gun owner (well, I'm an air gun owner) but I can tell the difference between a responsible owner and a bunch of wound-up, weirded-out paranoid anti-gov windbags.
Do people think this is part of the fairly wide-spread general disillusionment with ineffective and unprepresentative democracy that we see in many western countries, or a group of "individualists" who don't want to be accountable to anyone except their own selves?
Or maybe they are just stupid and ignorant? It is not unknown.
I've known enough militia members around here to know they're a fairly ignorant bunch sprinkled with a few higher functioning members. The higher functioning ones either quit once they've heard and seen enough bs, or wind up manipulating the others. A couple friends of mine were in one and they tried to get me to join, but the offer held no interest. Their militia tried to legitimize itself with the governor by saying it was available if needed.
They ended up quitting after the leaders began talking about going to people's houses to take their food storage in the event of disaster.
DutchWinsAll wrote: So the right wing was just criticizing Obama for not following through with mandatory minimums for non violent drug offenders, but are also critical of mandatory minimums being enforced as in this case? That's not hypocritical at all.
It's almost as if mandatory minimums are a horrible law.
For a good laugh I recommend perusing the comments section on Yahoo about this situation.
Mandatory mins *is* a horrible law, as it feeds into the beast that is for-profit-prison systems.
beast_gts wrote: This link is being shared on Facebook with the heading "Major terrorist attack in the USA".
t
It looks like even other militias are disavowing the one holed up in the building. Bundy needs to be in jail for a good long while, inciting violence as he is. This is a case where there is no cause to defend on his part.
I think calling them domestic terrorists is a little extreme. They haven't killed anyone, and quite frankly they're not that scary. Who is really being terrorized by them? They're idiots.
Now if they actually initiate some violent action, I'll reassess my opinion at that time, but so far they haven't done anything that plenty of other peaceful protest groups have done. They just happen to have weapons on them while they are doing it.
Don't get me wrong, I think they're idiots and I have concerns related to what Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote, but referring to these morons as domestic terrorists really seems like sensationalism to me.
That said, mandatory minimum sentencing laws are one of the worst problems of the American justice system currently, and need to be addressed. I find the situation in which two men who served their sentences and then are made to serve more time to be rather problematic.
Why not serve the remainder of their sentence parole status? Cheaper. Throwing them back in jail because their "Bundy's" to serve the remainder of their time is a bit stupid (after serving the original verdict). Seems like a personnel issue the Government have with these two.
Hordini wrote: I think calling them domestic terrorists is a little extreme. They haven't killed anyone, and quite frankly they're not that scary. Who is really being terrorized by them? They're idiots.
Because NEWS, Inc. needs there to be white protestants who are terrorists. There is an activist mindset in journalism today that just can't tolerate the idea of terrorism being an Islam-only phenomenon.
greatbigtree wrote: To the best of my knowledge, the Occupy movement was non-violent. These people are specifically threatening violence against anyone that tries to remove them.
So that would be the difference. Specific, armed threats, compared to non-violence. Yes, they are expected to abide by the legal decisions of the courts. It's kind of what the rule of law implies. That you don't get to say, "Go feth yourself. I gots a gun, so you can't make me." It's part of the package when you live in a society.
Okay, aside form the fact that the Occupy was not all nonviolent (hurting folks livelihoods is not peaceful by any means), didn't they basically tell the gov't 'Go feth yourself?" What is the difference? They did it in a bigger and much much more disruptive way than this group.
And of course I could have used the obvious examples of the Black Lives Matter associated crowds that burned Ferguson and other places as groups that DID commit openly violent acts as well as call for the killing of cops country wide.
where do you find this nonsense? faux news?
occupy protested the bail out of the banks, that is all. they didn't disrupt anything, nor hurt any ones livelihood. hell I bet the local pizza place had record profits while it was going on.
The occupy movement shut down three west coast ports. A single day of that fethed over a lot more people than occupying a building in the woods will do in the course of a year.
Hordini wrote: I think calling them domestic terrorists is a little extreme. They haven't killed anyone, and quite frankly they're not that scary. Who is really being terrorized by them? They're idiots.
Because NEWS, Inc. needs there to be white protestants who are terrorists. There is an activist mindset in journalism today that just can't tolerate the idea of terrorism being an Islam-only phenomenon.
You know there's this place called "Northern Ireland" right? EDIT: Or have I just fallen for a Poe again?
The KKK, IRA, Shining Path, Aum Shinrikyo, and dozens of other terrorist organizations that most definitely are/were not in any way related with Islam, would seem to suggest that terrorism is only an Islam-only phenomenon for people with very narrow world knowledge (and/or axes to grind)
LordofHats wrote: The KKK, IRA, Shining Path, Aum Shinrikyo, and dozens of other terrorist organizations that most definitely are/were not in any way related with Islam, would seem to suggest that terrorism is only an Islam-only phenomenon for people with very narrow world knowledge (and/or axes to grind)
Exactly. All of whom have committed terrorist acts domestically (and some abroad). Something that this group has not done yet and doesn't seem to be planning to do. They are currently occupying a building, which is the same tactic that many peaceful protesters have used in the past. The only difference is that these guys have weapons. They haven't used them or conducted a kinetic attack of any sort. Like I said, if they do, or appear that they intend to conduct some form of attack, I'll gladly change my opinion. But currently referring to them as domestic terrorists is sensationalizing the issue.
Why do people ITT keep stating that they aren't terrorists because they haven't killed anyone? Is it because people ITT are dumb?
Can someone point out to me in the definition of "terrorism" where killing people is a requirement? Because I'm pretty sure the definition of terrorism is using fear or threats to make political demands or express a political ideology. Which... taking a federal building hostage with guns and threatening violence if the police try to make them leave soundly fits into.
Hordini wrote: They are currently occupying a building, which is the same tactic that many peaceful protesters have used in the past. The only difference is that these guys have weapons.
BlaxicanX wrote: Why do people ITT keep stating that they aren't terrorists because they haven't killed anyone? Is it because people ITT are dumb?
Can someone point out to me in the definition of "terrorism" where killing people is a requirement? Because I'm pretty sure the definition of terrorism is using fear or threats to make political demands or express a political ideology. Which... taking a federal building hostage with guns and threatening violence if the police try to make them leave soundly fits into.
Hordini wrote: They are currently occupying a building, which is the same tactic that many peaceful protesters have used in the past. The only difference is that these guys have weapons.
costanzabattingcage.png
To be a terrorist they have to cause terror. Most terrorists, whether they succeed in actually killing people or not, conduct some form of kinetic attack in which people are killed or injured. That is, it goes above fear and threats. Otherwise anyone who makes a potentially threatening post on the internet in pursuit of a political ideology becomes a domestic terrorist. Who are they terrorizing by occupying a building in the middle of the woods? Just because they have the means to defend themselves, they become terrorists? Do all protesters who protest while armed become domestic terrorists? Are random white people who open carry during a demonstration domestic terrorists? What about Black Panthers?
Again, I'm not supporting these guys. I think they're idiots. But calling them domestic terrorists is an incredible stretch. Timothy McVeigh is a domestic terrorist. The Unabomber is a domestic terrorist. That's not what these guys are, unless you consider the occupy movement to be domestic terrorists as well, or open-carry activists. Again, if they initiate further action or show that they intend to, I'll gladly change my opinion, but that hasn't happened yet.
Hordini wrote: But currently referring to them as domestic terrorists is sensationalizing the issue.
Acts of violence is not solely how terrorism is defined. It also includes threats of violence and intimidation.
Then again, now we're just debating what the word terrorism means and I doubt that discussion is gonna go anywhere good.
Yes, that's true, but not everyone who makes a threat or uses intimidation tactics is a terrorist.
Here is a quote from the CNN article:
After the march Saturday, the armed protesters broke into the refuge's unoccupied building and refused to leave. Officials have said there are no government employees in the building.
"We will be here as long as it takes," Bundy said. "We have no intentions of using force upon anyone, (but) if force is used against us, we would defend ourselves."
They are occupiers and protesters who have the means to defend themselves. That is not the same as domestic terrorism.
Hordini wrote: To be a terrorist they have to cause terror. Most terrorists, whether they succeed in actually killing people or not, conduct some form of kinetic attack in which people are killed or injured. That is, it goes above fear and threats. Otherwise anyone who makes a potentially threatening post on the internet in pursuit of a political ideology becomes a domestic terrorist. Who are they terrorizing by occupying a building in the middle of the woods? Just because they have the means to defend themselves, they become terrorists? Do all protesters who protest while armed become domestic terrorists? Are random white people who open carry during a demonstration domestic terrorists? What about Black Panthers?
Again, I'm not supporting these guys. I think they're idiots. But calling them domestic terrorists is an incredible stretch. Timothy McVeigh is a domestic terrorist. The Unabomber is a domestic terrorist. That's not what these guys are, unless you consider the occupy movement to be domestic terrorists as well, or open-carry activists. Again, if they initiate further action or show that they intend to, I'll gladly change my opinion, but that hasn't happened yet.
Hordini wrote: They are currently occupying a building, which is the same tactic that many peaceful protesters have used in the past. The only difference is that these guys have weapons.
Hordini wrote: To be a terrorist they have to cause terror. Most terrorists, whether they succeed in actually killing people or not, conduct some form of kinetic attack in which people are killed or injured. That is, it goes above fear and threats. Otherwise anyone who makes a potentially threatening post on the internet in pursuit of a political ideology becomes a domestic terrorist. Who are they terrorizing by occupying a building in the middle of the woods? Just because they have the means to defend themselves, they become terrorists? Do all protesters who protest while armed become domestic terrorists? Are random white people who open carry during a demonstration domestic terrorists? What about Black Panthers?
Again, I'm not supporting these guys. I think they're idiots. But calling them domestic terrorists is an incredible stretch. Timothy McVeigh is a domestic terrorist. The Unabomber is a domestic terrorist. That's not what these guys are, unless you consider the occupy movement to be domestic terrorists as well, or open-carry activists. Again, if they initiate further action or show that they intend to, I'll gladly change my opinion, but that hasn't happened yet.
Hordini wrote: They are currently occupying a building, which is the same tactic that many peaceful protesters have used in the past. The only difference is that these guys have weapons.
costanzabattingcage.png
Do you have a point you are trying to make?
It's not a terrorist if there not causing terror.
They are armed but they have killed no one, not started shooting anyone or taken any hostages.
Because you can't claim self-defense when the police are using force on you for committing a crime. That's like me me murdering someone, then shooting the police when they try to arrest me and claiming I was just defending myself from the police.
Hordini wrote: To be a terrorist they have to cause terror. Most terrorists, whether they succeed in actually killing people or not, conduct some form of kinetic attack in which people are killed or injured. That is, it goes above fear and threats. Otherwise anyone who makes a potentially threatening post on the internet in pursuit of a political ideology becomes a domestic terrorist. Who are they terrorizing by occupying a building in the middle of the woods? Just because they have the means to defend themselves, they become terrorists? Do all protesters who protest while armed become domestic terrorists? Are random white people who open carry during a demonstration domestic terrorists? What about Black Panthers?
Again, I'm not supporting these guys. I think they're idiots. But calling them domestic terrorists is an incredible stretch. Timothy McVeigh is a domestic terrorist. The Unabomber is a domestic terrorist. That's not what these guys are, unless you consider the occupy movement to be domestic terrorists as well, or open-carry activists. Again, if they initiate further action or show that they intend to, I'll gladly change my opinion, but that hasn't happened yet.
And yes, actually. Anonymous is considered a terrorist organization by the Federal government, as were the Black Panthers.
Anyone who uses the threat of violence to further a political goal is a terrorist.
Are you sure the Black Panthers were actually considered a terrorist group? Are you sure you're not confusing them with the New Black Panthers? In any case, I should have been less specific. There have been white and black open carry activists who have demonstrated while armed, and they are not domestic terrorists, even though they may have made some people uncomfortable while remaining peaceful.
Anonymous, on the other hand, has actually carried out cyber attacks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BlaxicanX wrote: Because you can't claim self-defense when the police are using force on you for committing a crime. That's like me claiming "self-defense" after shooting the police who tried to arrest me for murdering someone.
They haven't murdered anyone and don't seem as though they intend to. And I don't think they're referring to making a self-defense claim in court, they're talking about physically defending themselves. Is anyone who resists government use of force a domestic terrorist? Are occupy protesters who physically resist police attempts to clear them out of an area domestic terrorists as well?
Hordini wrote: Otherwise anyone who makes a potentially threatening post on the internet in pursuit of a political ideology becomes a domestic terrorist.
Only if the posts are sufficient to suggest a real threat... and well what does that look like?
Just because they have the means to defend themselves,
Defend themselves from what? Being lawfully removed while engaged in illegal activity? Last I checked, breaking into a house does not give one a right to defend themselves from the cops coming to arrest them.
Do all protesters who protest while armed become domestic terrorists?
No. There had been a march in the town of Burns hours before this started, and some of the marchers were armed but no one called them terrorists.
But this is why I'd argue the word terrorist is an empty word. It means nothing beyond "scary person who poses a threat to me and my life in some hypothetical scenario." It exists more for political ends than anything else.
Hordini wrote: Is anyone who resists government use of force a domestic terrorist?
Anyone who uses force or threatens to use force to prevent the government from enforcing the law, in pursuit of a political goal, is a terrorist.
Are occupy protesters who physically resist police attempts to clear them out of an area domestic terrorists as well?
Any occupy protester who uses force or threatens to use force to prevent the government from enforcing the law, in pursuit of a political goal, is a terrorist.
Well, I guess if we're determined to use the word terrorist in the most hollow sense possible, fine. In that case these guys are definitely terrorists, as are all protesters who have ever refused to immediately comply with police commands. And they are all criminals as well. I suppose when you put it that way, I don't mind a little sensationalism myself.
I like my definition better though, quite honestly. Your definition includes basically everyone on the planet who has ever stood up for a civil right and not dispersed at the first request by police.
Hordini wrote: Are you sure the Black Panthers were actually considered a terrorist group? Are you sure you're not confusing them with the New Black Panthers? In any case, I should have been less specific. There have been white and black open carry activists who have demonstrated while armed, and they are not domestic terrorists, even though they may have made some people uncomfortable while remaining peaceful.
Well, I'm not sure the government used the same terminology in the 1960s to describe groups like the Black Panther Party that we would probably use in today's post-9/11 society.
For what it's worth, the FBI called the Black Panther Party a "black nationalist hate group," J. Edgar Hoover called them "the greatest threat to the internal security of the country," and it was the target of an extensive COINTELPRO investigation.
Hordini wrote: Are you sure the Black Panthers were actually considered a terrorist group? Are you sure you're not confusing them with the New Black Panthers? In any case, I should have been less specific. There have been white and black open carry activists who have demonstrated while armed, and they are not domestic terrorists, even though they may have made some people uncomfortable while remaining peaceful.
Well, I'm not sure the government used the same terminology in the 1960s to describe groups like the Black Panther Party that we would probably use in today's post-9/11 society.
For what it's worth, the FBI called the Black Panther Party a "black nationalist hate group," J. Edgar Hoover called them "the greatest threat to the internal security of the country," and it was the target of an extensive COINTELPRO investigation.
I ought not to have used the Black Panthers as an example, that was my bad. A better example would have just been African-American open carry activists.
Hordini wrote: Your definition includes basically everyone on the planet who has ever stood up for a civil right and not dispersed at the first request by police.
If you have problems with comprehension, I guess. In what way is "not dispersing at the first request of the police" using force? MLK wasn't a terrorist, do you know why? It's because even though he disobeyed the police, he didn't do it by shooting back or getting into fist-fights with police officers. When civil rights activists disobeyed the law they did so by simply standing there or laying there and forcing the police to arrest them- they never fought back. It's civil disobedience, but it isn't terrorism.
Hordini wrote: Your definition includes basically everyone on the planet who has ever stood up for a civil right and not dispersed at the first request by police.
If you have problems with comprehension, I guess. In what way is "not dispersing at the first request of the police" using force? MLK wasn't a terrorist, do you know why? It's because even though he disobeyed the police, he didn't do it by shooting back or getting into fist-fights with police officers. When civil rights activists disobeyed the law they did so by simply standing there or laying there and forcing the police to arrest them- they never fought back. It's civil disobedience, but it isn't terrorism.
So... would you've labeled Eric Holder's armed occupation of an ROTC building as terrorism?
Hordini wrote: Your definition includes basically everyone on the planet who has ever stood up for a civil right and not dispersed at the first request by police.
If you have problems with comprehension, I guess. In what way is "not dispersing at the first request of the police" using force? MLK wasn't a terrorist, do you know why? It's because even though he disobeyed the police, he didn't do it by shooting back or getting into fist-fights with police officers. When civil rights activists disobeyed the law they did so by simply standing there or laying there and forcing the police to arrest them- they never fought back. It's civil disobedience, but it isn't terrorism.
So, to clarify, civil disobedience while armed, would be by your definition terrorism, because it includes an unspoken threat of force?
If you think civil rights activists never fought back, you need to look into the civil rights movement a bit more.
Martin Luther King also owned firearms for defense. I agree with you that he wasn't a terrorist though.
Hordini wrote: Your definition includes basically everyone on the planet who has ever stood up for a civil right and not dispersed at the first request by police.
If you have problems with comprehension, I guess. In what way is "not dispersing at the first request of the police" using force? MLK wasn't a terrorist, do you know why? It's because even though he disobeyed the police, he didn't do it by shooting back or getting into fist-fights with police officers. When civil rights activists disobeyed the law they did so by simply standing there or laying there and forcing the police to arrest them- they never fought back. It's civil disobedience, but it isn't terrorism.
Not dispersing could be construed as using force because people are physically blocking entry into an area or building. If they are also blocking exit paths, it could even be considered kidnapping in some jurisdictions.
Hordini wrote: Your definition includes basically everyone on the planet who has ever stood up for a civil right and not dispersed at the first request by police.
If you have problems with comprehension, I guess. In what way is "not dispersing at the first request of the police" using force? MLK wasn't a terrorist, do you know why? It's because even though he disobeyed the police, he didn't do it by shooting back or getting into fist-fights with police officers. When civil rights activists disobeyed the law they did so by simply standing there or laying there and forcing the police to arrest them- they never fought back. It's civil disobedience, but it isn't terrorism.
So... would you've labeled Eric Holder's armed occupation of an ROTC building as terrorism?
Yup, I would also label Samuel L Jackson a terrorist for holding a college hostage in the 60's.
That's kind of the thing about definitions... they don't change just because you like or dislike somebody.
Hordini wrote: So, to clarify, civil disobedience while armed, would be by your definition terrorism, because it includes an unspoken threat of force?
using your arms to be disobedient or stating that you intend to use your arms if the authorities attempt to stop your civil disobedience is terrroism.
If you think civil rights activists never fought back, you need to look into the civil rights movement a bit more.
That's not what I said, but nice try.
Not dispersing could be construed as using force
A toaster could be construed as an airplane if you think about it from a certain point of view.
This is clearly one of those times where cooler heads need to prevail. this govt building is a log cabin in BFE. so far noone has been killed, noone has been hurt. Lets keep it that way. these folks are not terrorists, they are idiots. Idiots need to be handled with care. they believe they have a legit beef, so let them vent, let them talk, then send their dumb ...... 's home.
Hordini wrote: Your definition includes basically everyone on the planet who has ever stood up for a civil right and not dispersed at the first request by police.
If you have problems with comprehension, I guess. In what way is "not dispersing at the first request of the police" using force? MLK wasn't a terrorist, do you know why? It's because even though he disobeyed the police, he didn't do it by shooting back or getting into fist-fights with police officers. When civil rights activists disobeyed the law they did so by simply standing there or laying there and forcing the police to arrest them- they never fought back. It's civil disobedience, but it isn't terrorism.
So... would you've labeled Eric Holder's armed occupation of an ROTC building as terrorism?
Yup, I would also label Samuel L Jackson a terrorist for holding a college hostage in the 60's.
That's kind of the thing about definitions... they don't change just because you like or dislike somebody.
At least you're consistent.
BTW... MLK is widely known to be armed while he was protesting. (for good reason). Obviously, he wasn't a terrorist.
Hordini wrote: Your definition includes basically everyone on the planet who has ever stood up for a civil right and not dispersed at the first request by police.
If you have problems with comprehension, I guess. In what way is "not dispersing at the first request of the police" using force? MLK wasn't a terrorist, do you know why? It's because even though he disobeyed the police, he didn't do it by shooting back or getting into fist-fights with police officers. When civil rights activists disobeyed the law they did so by simply standing there or laying there and forcing the police to arrest them- they never fought back. It's civil disobedience, but it isn't terrorism.
So... would you've labeled Eric Holder's armed occupation of an ROTC building as terrorism?
I wouldn't. Again, I'm not saying I would support the action either, but I wouldn't consider occupying a building in protest terrorism just because some of the members were armed.
Man, I worked in Burns for a month about 10 years ago. I hated it. Nice people, but jesus that town... yuck. Had to drive through it over the holidays last week. Still not a fan.
There is going to be a fairly simple solution. Invest the encampment. Wait. It is 7 degrees there in the day time. Make arrests. This is clearly an illegal form of protest. Its felony B&E. Bye bye Bundy. Enjoy the lovely Ontario, Oregon Prison.
Hordini wrote: I think calling them domestic terrorists is a little extreme. They haven't killed anyone, and quite frankly they're not that scary. Who is really being terrorized by them? They're idiots.
Because NEWS, Inc. needs there to be white protestants who are terrorists. There is an activist mindset in journalism today that just can't tolerate the idea of terrorism being an Islam-only phenomenon.
You know there's this place called "Northern Ireland" right? EDIT: Or have I just fallen for a Poe again?
Partly Poe's Law. Partly not. My intent could have been clearer but I like being snarky.
By NEWS, Inc., I meant American news media not European mostly because I'm not familiar with European news outside the BBC. You brought up Norther Ireland, but consider that people from Norther Ireland aren't known for conducting terror activities in the USA, therefore IRA actions don't fit the template American journalists are looking for. In this country "our" media seem to have been longing for a local, home-grown terrorist to pop up, especially if they can tag "right-wing" or "militia" to the headline. It's obvious in the bias over what they want to call a terrorist action and what they want to say isn't terror related. Look at their early headlines of the attack in San Bernardino and the headlines of what's happening in Oregon.
greatbigtree wrote: To the best of my knowledge, the Occupy movement was non-violent. These people are specifically threatening violence against anyone that tries to remove them.
So that would be the difference. Specific, armed threats, compared to non-violence. Yes, they are expected to abide by the legal decisions of the courts. It's kind of what the rule of law implies. That you don't get to say, "Go feth yourself. I gots a gun, so you can't make me." It's part of the package when you live in a society.
Okay, aside form the fact that the Occupy was not all nonviolent (hurting folks livelihoods is not peaceful by any means), didn't they basically tell the gov't 'Go feth yourself?" What is the difference? They did it in a bigger and much much more disruptive way than this group.
And of course I could have used the obvious examples of the Black Lives Matter associated crowds that burned Ferguson and other places as groups that DID commit openly violent acts as well as call for the killing of cops country wide.
where do you find this nonsense? faux news?
occupy protested the bail out of the banks, that is all. they didn't disrupt anything, nor hurt any ones livelihood. hell I bet the local pizza place had record profits while it was going on.
The occupy movement shut down three west coast ports. A single day of that fethed over a lot more people than occupying a building in the woods will do in the course of a year.
Very true. Yet people seem eager to lionize the occupiers as some sort of heroes.
BTW... MLK is widely known to be armed while he was protesting. (for good reason). Obviously, he wasn't a terrorist.
If he was armed for the intention of shooting some crazy white boy who wanted to walk up to him and blow his head off, that's not terrorism. If he was armed for the intention of popping a cap in the first police officer who attempted to arrest him- that would be terrorism.
Blow them up, and get the new TRUMP Civil war and Casino underway!
Basically, it's better to just ignore them, as hitting them with a drone strike just makes them both right and martyrs. (After all, no one ares if you drop a drone strike on a US citizen in a foreign country, terrorist or not, but drop one in the US of A, and it's gak to fan contact)
I agree though that it seems a bit odd that they did their time, and on release were determined to need more time in jail. that doesn't sound quite right or at all like the US justice system is supposed to work.
Hordini wrote: Your definition includes basically everyone on the planet who has ever stood up for a civil right and not dispersed at the first request by police.
If you have problems with comprehension, I guess. In what way is "not dispersing at the first request of the police" using force? MLK wasn't a terrorist, do you know why? It's because even though he disobeyed the police, he didn't do it by shooting back or getting into fist-fights with police officers. When civil rights activists disobeyed the law they did so by simply standing there or laying there and forcing the police to arrest them- they never fought back. It's civil disobedience, but it isn't terrorism.
So... would you've labeled Eric Holder's armed occupation of an ROTC building as terrorism?
Yup, I would also label Samuel L Jackson a terrorist for holding a college hostage in the 60's.
That's kind of the thing about definitions... they don't change just because you like or dislike somebody.
Hordini wrote: So, to clarify, civil disobedience while armed, would be by your definition terrorism, because it includes an unspoken threat of force?
using your arms to be disobedient or stating that you intend to use your arms if the authorities attempt to stop your civil disobedience is terrroism.
If you think civil rights activists never fought back, you need to look into the civil rights movement a bit more.
That's not what I said, but nice try.
Not dispersing could be construed as using force
A toaster could be construed as an airplane if you think about it from a certain point of view.
I didn't say you said that, I said if you think that, you should look into it more. If you are already well spun up on the subject, then obviously there is no issue. If you don't see how your statement of "When civil rights activists disobeyed the law they did so by simply standing there or laying there and forcing the police to arrest them- they never fought back. It's civil disobedience, but it isn't terrorism" could be seen as you potentially thinking that civil rights activists didn't fight back, then I don't know what to tell you. I'm not trying to play a game of gotcha, I'm just making suggestions. I can also see how you could make a statement without thinking of every single possible implication prior to posting it. I do it all the time, it doesn't have to be a bad thing. If I make a statement based on something you posted, and it turns out that I misconstrued it because I don't know everything involved in your thought process, and based on that I made a suggestion that you look into a subject more, that's okay. It doesn't mean I was "trying" for something. The civil rights movement being peaceful is a common misconception that many people have, so me suggesting that you look into it further based on your post isn't that far beyond the pail, and it certainly isn't "nice try" or gotcha material. If I post something like that, I mean it in good faith.
I think our definition of terrorism simply diverges at a critical point. It's not about liking or disliking someone more. I just tend to put more weight on action and stated intent than on potential action. I also tend to view terrorism based more on actual kinetic capabilities and actual intent rather than simple threats. Primarily because I don't want to devalue the use of the word any more than it already has been. For example (and I'm not referring to this case), I don't think armed demonstrators at a rally should be considered domestic terrorists just because someone saw them and felt intimidated or threatened for whatever reason.
BTW... MLK is widely known to be armed while he was protesting. (for good reason). Obviously, he wasn't a terrorist.
If he was armed for the intention of shooting some crazy white boy who wanted to walk up to him and blow his head off, that's not terrorism. If he was armed for the intention of popping a cap in the first police officer who attempted to arrest him- that would be terrorism.
What if the crazy white boy who wanted to blow his head off was also a police officer?
I like how I asked a non American why they cared about America's gun laws (and was looking forward to a response) and I got banned from posting for a week. And yet I e seen posts where people on here are calling others dumb or ignorant. Repeatedly. Anyway back on topic
Hordini wrote: What if the crazy white boy who wanted to blow his head off was also a police officer?
Then you're supposed to let him do it. Then he goes to jail. fethed up, ain't it?
Laws don't exist to prevent crime, merely punish it.
"Supposed to." That doesn't mean it's necessarily ethical. And I'm not anti-police, just thinking about the times in the south were some police officers were known KKK members. It seems like it would be a terrible situation to be in. Regardless of legality, I don't think someone involved in such a situation who exercised force to defend themselves could rightly be considered a terrorist for that act. Unless we just really want the word to have no meaning whatsoever.
Hordini wrote: I think calling them domestic terrorists is a little extreme. They haven't killed anyone, and quite frankly they're not that scary. Who is really being terrorized by them? They're idiots.
I'm a bit mixed.
Do I think that an armed group that has taken illegal possession of a federal building, who are threatening to use lethal force against government agents for enforcing federal laws, and who are calling for people to rise up against the government and "take it back" have earned the title of "terrorist group"? Yes.
Would I consider this a "terrorist attack"? Not really. If they would have shot out some windows, thrown in a couple flashbangs, then stormed the building with guns drawn ready to shoot anybody in there, then I would be very willing to call it an attack. Right now they are more along the act of setting up a Terrorist Winter Camp Adult Day Care.
I agree though that it seems a bit odd that they did their time, and on release were determined to need more time in jail. that doesn't sound quite right or at all like the US justice system is supposed to work.
I'd probably have more sympathy if the first fire hadn't been used to cover up another crime, and the second hadn't put the lives of firefighters at risk (well... more risk). 3-4 Months for what they did was far too lenient, even without the whole mandatory minimums curfluffle.
That though does not mean that we can just drop a GBU onto them and be done with it. I do love seeing all the gung ho "kill them!" posts though.
If a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response.
But I doubt that even those guys are dumb enough for that. So set up a perimeter, starve them out, arrest them when they either come out with their tails between their legs or pass out from a hunger strike.
That though does not mean that we can just drop a GBU onto them and be done with it. I do love seeing all the gung ho "kill them!" posts though.
If a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response.
But I doubt that even those guys are dumb enough for that. So set up a perimeter, starve them out, arrest them when they either come out with their tails between their legs or pass out from a hunger strike.
I don't think the parallels between Ruby Ridge or Waco are particularly apt, seeing as how in both of those situations, those people were at their homes, not a federal facility they had commandeered. Are you suggesting that if these guys seize a facility and start shooting at the police, that force still should not be an option? Because that's the point I have to disagree with, and the responsibility for that outcome lies with the people who seized the building.
But there is no point in splitting hairs, since ultimately I agree that unless they start shooting, the best course is to just cut the water and power and wait. They're in the middle of BFE with no immediate danger to anyone unless they create it.
Ouze wrote: I don't think the parallels between Ruby Ridge or Waco are particularly apt, seeing as how in both of those situations, those people were at their homes, not a federal facility they had commandeered. Are you suggesting that if these guys seize a facility and start shooting at the police, that force still should not be an option? Because that's the point I have to disagree with, and the responsibility for that outcome lies with the people who seized the building.
But there is no point in splitting hairs, since ultimately I agree that unless they start shooting, the best course is to just cut the water and power and wait. They're in the middle of BFE with no immediate danger to anyone unless they create it.
I truly hope these people aren't stupid enough to shoot.
If a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response.
We've been there, and done that. The result was dead women and kids, shot by police snipers.
Yeah, that is not the way things should be solved in democratic, civilised states. Violence is the way of dicators and opressive regimes, and the way a country handles situations like this show its true colours.
And to settle the what is a terrorist question, the US legal definition of terrorism:
U.S. Code Title 22 Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d) wrote: “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”
Terrorism refers to the use of violence (or threatening to use violence) against innocent people by groups, governments or individuals, usually but not necessarily in pursuit of a political goal. Terrorism does not refer to violent or non-violent resistance against authorities. Afaik, this group does not seem to be threatening violence against any innocent people, and therefore they are not terrorists.
If a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response.
We've been there, and done that. The result was dead women and kids, shot by police snipers.
Yeah, that is not the way things should be solved in democratic, civilised states. Violence is the way of dicators and opressive regimes, and the way a country handles situations like this show its true colours.
And to settle the what is a terrorist question, the US legal definition of terrorism:
U.S. Code Title 22 Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d) wrote: “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”
Terrorism refers to the use of violence (or threatening to use violence) against innocent people by groups, governments or individuals, usually but not necessarily in pursuit of a political goal. Terrorism does not refer to violent or non-violent resistance against authorities. Afaik, this group does not seem to be threatening violence against any innocent people, and therefore they are not terrorists.
Iron_Captain wrote: Violence is the way of dicators and opressive regimes, and the way a country handles situations like this show its true colours.
Wasn't Putin's solution to order to fire RPGs into a school gym filled with hostages?
Putin had nothing to do with it, but yes, the FSB did that. Death to terrorists and all that. However I like to think US authorities have a higher regard for lives.
Iron_Captain wrote: And to settle the what is a terrorist question, the US legal definition of terrorism:
U.S. Code Title 22 Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d) wrote: “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”
Terrorism refers to the use of violence (or threatening to use violence) against innocent people by groups, governments or individuals, usually but not necessarily in pursuit of a political goal. Terrorism does not refer to violent or non-violent resistance against authorities. Afaik, this group does not seem to be threatening violence against any innocent people, and therefore they are not terrorists.
The cite from Cornell is the accurate cite. The one Iron Captain uses is not from the criminal section of the US code, but rather the one used by the State Department for international relations; and that definition is limited to that scope.
They said they they won't rule out violence, which is pretty much any reasonable person's definition of threatening violence. Their own statements are textbook seditious conspiracy.
Ideally the situation will be resolved with the minimum of force required to apprehend and charge them; hopefully none. This is almost certainly a big hullaballoo about nothing; they claim there are as many as 150 people there and they are prepared to stay for weeks, but the initial report from before the police blockaded the area said about a dozen vehicles. You're not fitting anywhere near that number with anywhere near that level of supplies there.
Ouze wrote: I don't think the parallels between Ruby Ridge or Waco are particularly apt, seeing as how in both of those situations, those people were at their homes, not a federal facility they had commandeered. Are you suggesting that if these guys seize a facility and start shooting at the police, that force still should not be an option? Because that's the point I have to disagree with, and the responsibility for that outcome lies with the people who seized the building.
But there is no point in splitting hairs, since ultimately I agree that unless they start shooting, the best course is to just cut the water and power and wait. They're in the middle of BFE with no immediate danger to anyone unless they create it.
I absolutely do think that force should be an option if they start shooting at the police. I was disagreeing with the statement "if a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response."
Yeah, I asked but I didn't really think you'd say otherwise - it's a pretty hard argument to make that the police shouldn't shoot back if they're getting shot at.
If a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response.
We've been there, and done that. The result was dead women and kids, shot by police snipers.
Yeah, that is not the way things should be solved in democratic, civilised states. Violence is the way of dicators and opressive regimes, and the way a country handles situations like this show its true colours.
And to settle the what is a terrorist question, the US legal definition of terrorism:
U.S. Code Title 22 Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d) wrote: “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”
Terrorism refers to the use of violence (or threatening to use violence) against innocent people by groups, governments or individuals, usually but not necessarily in pursuit of a political goal. Terrorism does not refer to violent or non-violent resistance against authorities. Afaik, this group does not seem to be threatening violence against any innocent people, and therefore they are not terrorists.
It seems the US Code is self-contradictory then. Its definition of terrorism shifts from chapter to chapter...
Regardless, anti-government resistance is normally not seen as terrorism except by the affected government themselves, which just uses it as an "enemy of the people" kind of lable.
Ouze wrote: I don't think the parallels between Ruby Ridge or Waco are particularly apt, seeing as how in both of those situations, those people were at their homes, not a federal facility they had commandeered. Are you suggesting that if these guys seize a facility and start shooting at the police, that force still should not be an option? Because that's the point I have to disagree with, and the responsibility for that outcome lies with the people who seized the building.
But there is no point in splitting hairs, since ultimately I agree that unless they start shooting, the best course is to just cut the water and power and wait. They're in the middle of BFE with no immediate danger to anyone unless they create it.
I absolutely do think that force should be an option if they start shooting at the police. I was disagreeing with the statement "if a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response."
Well, I didn't mean "one bullet and firebomb the place" although I can see how I could have phrased it better. But any aggression from the militia should be responded to appropriately. They can't play the victim if they start the mess.
Ouze wrote: Yeah, I asked but I didn't really think you'd say otherwise - it's a pretty hard argument to make that the police shouldn't shoot back if they're getting shot at.
I like to think I'm a pretty reasonable guy, even if I find certain definitions of terrorism problematic.
Ouze wrote: I don't think the parallels between Ruby Ridge or Waco are particularly apt, seeing as how in both of those situations, those people were at their homes, not a federal facility they had commandeered. Are you suggesting that if these guys seize a facility and start shooting at the police, that force still should not be an option? Because that's the point I have to disagree with, and the responsibility for that outcome lies with the people who seized the building.
But there is no point in splitting hairs, since ultimately I agree that unless they start shooting, the best course is to just cut the water and power and wait. They're in the middle of BFE with no immediate danger to anyone unless they create it.
I absolutely do think that force should be an option if they start shooting at the police. I was disagreeing with the statement "if a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response."
Well, I didn't mean "one bullet and firebomb the place" although I can see how I could have phrased it better. But any aggression from the militia should be responded to appropriately. They can't play the victim if they start the mess.
Yes, and I didn't think that's really what you meant either. But I did feel as though that phrasing could imply a welcoming of a response that could be construed as overly aggressive, considering that you usually present relatively well-reasoned suggestions.
Ouze wrote: I don't think the parallels between Ruby Ridge or Waco are particularly apt, seeing as how in both of those situations, those people were at their homes, not a federal facility they had commandeered. Are you suggesting that if these guys seize a facility and start shooting at the police, that force still should not be an option? Because that's the point I have to disagree with, and the responsibility for that outcome lies with the people who seized the building.
But there is no point in splitting hairs, since ultimately I agree that unless they start shooting, the best course is to just cut the water and power and wait. They're in the middle of BFE with no immediate danger to anyone unless they create it.
I absolutely do think that force should be an option if they start shooting at the police. I was disagreeing with the statement "if a single bullet comes flying out of that building they would deserve a full and lethal response."
The best, yet hardest thing the Feds could do if these clowns shoot at them, possibly even killing one, is to wall them in and wait them out. That way they won't get martyrs and be accused of being trigger happy goons by other extreme right wingers. They would end up clearly becoming the heroes out of this in the eyes of far more people.
Jihadin wrote: Why not serve the remainder of their sentence parole status? Cheaper. Throwing them back in jail because their "Bundy's" to serve the remainder of their time is a bit stupid (after serving the original verdict). Seems like a personnel issue the Government have with these two.
I feel like I should tell you this, they are not "Bundy's". The Hammond's are attempting to distance themselves from this group. Even the people they are "protesting" for are saying they are loony balloonys.
Also, the Hammond's put a lot of people at risk for those fires. While I do not think minimum sentences are a good thing, I do feel that 4 months in prison for starting forest fires in an area that is at risk for them is pretty much a slap on the wrist.
You can get more time for smoking a plant, why get less time for smoking a forest?
I found this posted online. Warning, it is clearly biased and snarky because Occupy Democrats, but it does give a little more information. Schools are currently closed down on the area, which is confusing, because I didn't even know school started back up this early.
This could be a hope that spreads through the whole country. Everybody’s looking for this hope because the government has beat us, oppressed us and took everything from us. They will not stop until we tell them no.
Really? You have no idea whatsoever about what true oppression or tyranny is do you? Just because you can't do what you want you feel that you're being oppressed? Words fail me. You do realise that this is 2016, not the 1800's? That the US is a civilised country, not some lawless frontier country?
It just highlights how useless the word "terrorist" has become. It's used to scare people and to turn the target from a person into a demon, someone who acts the way they do because they're intrinsically bad. Nobody is a demon.
Not that the names aren't cute or anything, but I think there are a lot of Muslims who'd appreciate people avoiding jokes that hinge on "they are terrorists so they're acting like Muslims, ha ha"
I mean, they're a bunch of white Americans so you already have the KKK in particular to compare them to. Especially since it sounds like they might be related......?
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Not that the names aren't cute or anything, but I think there are a lot of Muslims who'd appreciate people avoiding jokes that hinge on "they are terrorists so they're acting like Muslims, ha ha"
I mean, they're a bunch of white Americans so you already have the KKK in particular to compare them to. Especially since it sounds like they might be related......?
I am confused, why would a Muslim person be upset about us comparing our crazies to their crazies?
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Not that the names aren't cute or anything, but I think there are a lot of Muslims who'd appreciate people avoiding jokes that hinge on "they are terrorists so they're acting like Muslims, ha ha"
I mean, they're a bunch of white Americans so you already have the KKK in particular to compare them to. Especially since it sounds like they might be related......?
I am confused, why would a Muslim person be upset about us comparing our crazies to their crazies?
Why is your avatar what seems to be Mario raping Princess Peach? Is that a great thing to use as an avatar?
Anyway, Muslims get tired of being associated with terrorists, and acting like terrorism is a Muslim thing (in particular I want to say jihad isn't a thing intrinsic to terrorists, or exclusive to terrorists) does that. Most people in our countries don't know a lot of Muslims, so whenever people say things like that it deepens the association and there's not a lot to counterbalance it.
Also it's sort of complicated because whether "terrorist" is applied to someone is generally deeply political? For example, you probably wouldn't say that America is committing acts of terrorism even though it kills Daesh members, officials, infrastructure, etc. even including killing related civilians. It mainly seems to be a term used to delegitimise the use of force by some party?
It's probably best to leave Muslims out of it. They didn't even invent it (the French did).
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Not that the names aren't cute or anything, but I think there are a lot of Muslims who'd appreciate people avoiding jokes that hinge on "they are terrorists so they're acting like Muslims, ha ha"
I mean, they're a bunch of white Americans so you already have the KKK in particular to compare them to. Especially since it sounds like they might be related......?
I am confused, why would a Muslim person be upset about us comparing our crazies to their crazies?
Why is your avatar what seems to be Mario raping Princess Peach? Is that a great thing to use as an avatar?
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Not that the names aren't cute or anything, but I think there are a lot of Muslims who'd appreciate people avoiding jokes that hinge on "they are terrorists so they're acting like Muslims, ha ha"
I mean, they're a bunch of white Americans so you already have the KKK in particular to compare them to. Especially since it sounds like they might be related......?
I am confused, why would a Muslim person be upset about us comparing our crazies to their crazies?
Anyway, Muslims get tired of being associated with terrorists, and acting like terrorism is a Muslim thing (in particular I want to say jihad isn't a thing intrinsic to terrorists, or exclusive to terrorists) does that. Most people in our countries don't know a lot of Muslims, so whenever people say things like that it deepens the association and there's not a lot to counterbalance it.
Also it's sort of complicated because whether "terrorist" is applied to someone is generally deeply political? For example, you probably wouldn't say that America is committing acts of terrorism even though it kills Daesh members, officials, infrastructure, etc. even including killing related civilians. It mainly seems to be a term used to delegitimise the use of force by some party?
It's probably best to leave Muslims out of it. They didn't even invent it (the French did).
I don't think you understood the references then. Isis and Al Qaeda are both major terrorist organizations. Both of them use jihad as an excuse to do what they do.
Apologies for making terrorist jokes referencing terrorist organizations aimed at a group of domestic terrorists.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Not that the names aren't cute or anything, but I think there are a lot of Muslims who'd appreciate people avoiding jokes that hinge on "they are terrorists so they're acting like Muslims, ha ha"
I mean, they're a bunch of white Americans so you already have the KKK in particular to compare them to. Especially since it sounds like they might be related......?
I am confused, why would a Muslim person be upset about us comparing our crazies to their crazies?
Two reasons.
For one, because a lot of people currently take the muslim crazies as not crazies but as representative of mainstream muslim thinking. Most muslims are just ordinary people trying to get on with their lives peacefully and in accordance with law and do not need any more unfair discrimination from the majority.
For the second, 'jihad' has the meaning of personal struggle against religious failings. To equate it with ISIL's violence is the same kind of confusion as mixing up pilgrimage, crusade and invasion.
Only way this ends without people dying is, unfortunately, by a crazy militia to grow some sense and stop being crazy, and since when is that something crazy militias do?
Hammonds have stated they don't want any of this. Local area is not supportive.
Protest fine. A sub group taking over a small office (its a simple park entrance office-no biggie) is a different thing.
Just cut off the power and water. they will be out in a week and then arrest the ringleaders.
Or we can freak out, call them terrorists, and napalm the place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Is this the same Bundy guy from that dakka thread ages ago? The one Frazz wanted to run over with an Abrahams tank or something?
yes. Since that thread I have been reading Zologa books comparing the Sherman easy 8, Panther, Korea era M26s vs. T-34 85s, and now one on comparing the Tiger II vs. IS II.
Based on that I would have to modify my initial statement.
Instead of an Abrams use an M48 Patton. Its sturdy and they finally got the drive train and engine right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Issue them a deadline, wait for their reaffirm of violence if met with lawful action...
Take extreme action to remove them as they have placed themselves in the position of hostile combatants.
After seeing a pic of the building I have to suggest we wait them out and do the crush and grind once they leave. The building itself is a beautiful little thing with beautiful slate roofs and rock walls. Its hardly more than a large cabin and reminds me of the Inks Lake one where I spread the parents' ashes. To pretty to mess up.
Now once they leave, well its time to get that old M48 into gear!
Jihadin wrote: Let them have their "fun"
I get concern when "God Wills It" or "Allah Ackbar" start getting said. Then I start cleaning my rifles and side pieces
Ouze wrote: Man, we've got to remember this thread happened the next time someone claims there is no such thing as white privilege.
Agreed. If it were anybody else, that building would be a crater by now.
Bull gak.
Armed men take over a Federal building, there is talk of overthrowing the government and...nothing happens...
Armed men take over a small structure isolated in the woods on federal land where they are zero threat to anyone out of line of sight, yes, nothing happens. No 'cratering' takes place no matter what their skin color or religious affiliation or college football team preference. And as if skin color REALLY makes a difference in how the feds handle folks, see Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidian compound. Compare to how they handled the Ferguson riots where innocent people were actually put in danger by the actions of the perps.
Ustrello wrote: Did you burn public land? And 139 acres of it also almost killing some people?
Its a separate issue.
One issue is the legal charges, and weirdness around that. Thats for attorneys and people legally marching/demonstrating, just like Chicago or anywhere else.
The other issue is an armed group occupying a park building, and trying to get the government to attack them. The US has a long history of not tolerating such, nor should it.
Blockade them with buses of hipsters brought in from Portland, complaining about how this is all so gauche and where's the nearest Startbucks. That'll drive em out!
Protesters have occupied a branch of Games Workshop in protest at rules changes which mean they may lose their favourite characters.
Described as ‘militant’ warhammer players, the group of 150 seized the Stevenage branch over New Year when it was lightly guarded and announced their intention to ‘kill or be killed’ in order to defend their expertly painted miniatures.
Warhammer fans are known as a tight-knit and insular group who live in seclusion, shun outsiders and massively overreact to any perceived threat to their highly prized armies.
Recent rules updates to Warhammer are believed to have sparked the protests, with thousands of players expected to lose to prized heroes and years of effort in learning complex, byzantine rules exploit, and this is seen as another flareup in years of conflict between Games Workshop and their customers.
Calling themselves Aelf-Queda, the group have confirmed their willingness to stay for years, as they’ve now got loads of figures and paints which will keep them occupied pretty much indefinitely.
Speaking to us through a pair of tin cans and a piece of string, Aelf-Queda member Simon Williams told us that the group had to take a “Hard Stand” over Games Workshop’s treatment of loyal customers.
“We’re calling on other groups to stand up and join us”, he said. “Especially anyone with a Chaos or Slaanesh army, as those bad boys can really tip things in your favour”.
“Why, no, I’ve never felt the loving touch of a woman, why do you ask?”
Games Workshop are reported to be ‘not that fussed’ by the protesters as they might not like the new rules but they’re still buying them.
Ouze wrote: That being said, I'd like to know more about why these 2 served the time they were sentenced and now are being called upon to serve more time for the same conviction.
"By law, arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. When the Hammonds were originally sentenced, they argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional and the trial court agreed and imposed sentences well below what the law required based upon the jury’s verdicts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the federal law, reasoning that “given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.”"
Hardly, there's no legal issue across multiple jurisdictions. Trial rulings, even jury ones, can be revisited by appellate courts, and this one is easy. If the minimum term is X and the jury gives less than X, then thats not following the law and trial court should act.
Jihadin wrote: I back the Bundy in this. Till they make dumb racist remarks then I drop them em like a pesky Insurgent
So far they were sentenced, served, and release. Now they're going back in for the mandatory due to 9th Circuit decision.
They aren't going on trial again they are simply being put back in jail for the correct amount of time. So no they did not serve their time
If that's the case, then it need to be declared a mistrial and re-tried.
No they were found guilty. The issue is the sentencing. You are correct in that there should be new hearings on the sentencing.
None of that matters to the ones occupying the park building. they are committing an illegal act of tresspass and have threatened the use of violence. That ratchets it to a felony.
Sounds like a job for that legend of deputies: Barney Fife.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Not that the names aren't cute or anything, but I think there are a lot of Muslims who'd appreciate people avoiding jokes that hinge on "they are terrorists so they're acting like Muslims, ha ha"
I mean, they're a bunch of white Americans so you already have the KKK in particular to compare them to. Especially since it sounds like they might be related......?
I am confused, why would a Muslim person be upset about us comparing our crazies to their crazies?
Two reasons.
For one, because a lot of people currently take the muslim crazies as not crazies but as representative of mainstream muslim thinking. Most muslims are just ordinary people trying to get on with their lives peacefully and in accordance with law and do not need any more unfair discrimination from the majority.
For the second, 'jihad' has the meaning of personal struggle against religious failings. To equate it with ISIL's violence is the same kind of confusion as mixing up pilgrimage, crusade and invasion.
Well, for your first reason nobody has been discriminating against Muslims in here. Isis and Al Qaeda were singled out for jokes, but seeing as how the majority of the Muslim community has disowned them, I find it hard to see that making fun of them is the same as making fun of Muslims. It would be like Christians being insulted when people make fun of the Westboro Baptist Church. Regardless, twisting the names of known terrorist groups in an effort to make fun of a group of domestic terrorists using word play is far from insulting towards an entire religion.
For the second, 'jihad' has more than just one meaning in the Muslim world. It refers to an inner spiritual struggle as well as an outer physical struggle. Not really sure where you were going with the pilgrimage, crusade, and invasion thing. I think you may be forgetting what the Crusades were, which was a Holy Invasion to protect Pilgrimage.
Ouze wrote: Man, we've got to remember this thread happened the next time someone claims there is no such thing as white privilege.
I think you'll find some of us have maintained our position all along, and invented new and interesting ways involving tank treads for dealing with the situation.
However, I would not view this as terrorism, but more crime akin to other armed situations like Wounded Knee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_incident
Jihadin wrote: Let them have their "fun"
I get concern when "God Wills It" or "Allah Ackbar" start getting said. Then I start cleaning my rifles and side pieces
I didn't read the entire multi-page thread. A: they are not terrorists. They are not going out causing fear to promote a political or social cause. They are occupying an empty building out in the woods. There are no hostages and no innocent people inside. If the media and law enforcement ignored them then they would eventually get bored and leave since the location they chose is entirely inconsequential to anything else.
B; They do not represent militias and other pro-American groups. They represent themselves.
C: Guess: The administration, Hillary and anti-American media will use this as an example for another anti-gun go round.
D: The cause is actually just even if it is just an excuse for them to make the news. The Hammonds got screwed over by the corrupt A-holes at BLM who fabricated lies about them. The fact they lit this back fire to burn away brush to head off a massive lightning caused fire on government land heading towards them and effectively saved the land is not something the media is telling everyone. Nor are they mentioning that a 1975 study proved that these fires were very beneficial to the ecology of the area. They also fail to mention this was a BLM land grab starting back in the 80s. Fun fact, a bunch of ranchers refused to sell their land so BLM dammed up a river and effectively flooded out the ranchers and bought the property at a much reduced rate and then removed the dam. That's the kind of government people we are dealing with. Also the prosecution in the case had 6 days to present evidence and only allowed the defense 1 and somehow the jury selection was railroaded by the judge to not allow anyone with any knowledge or experience of ranching or farming.
D: The cause is actually just even if it is just an excuse for them to make the news. The Hammonds got screwed over by the corrupt A-holes at BLM who fabricated lies about them. The fact they lit this back fire to burn away brush to head off a massive lightning caused fire on government land heading towards them and effectively saved the land is not something the media is telling everyone. Nor are they mentioning that a 1975 study proved that these fires were very beneficial to the ecology of the area. They also fail to mention this was a BLM land grab starting back in the 80s. Fun fact, a bunch of ranchers refused to sell their land so BLM dammed up a river and effectively flooded out the ranchers and bought the property at a much reduced rate and then removed the dam. That's the kind of government people we are dealing with. Also the prosecution in the case had 6 days to present evidence and only allowed the defense 1 and somehow the jury selection was railroaded by the judge to not allow anyone with any knowledge or experience of ranching or farming.
And none of that is related to occupying a government building and threatening to kill people. Thats not how a country works under the rule of law.
Col. Dash wrote: I didn't read the entire multi-page thread. A: they are not terrorists. They are not going out causing fear to promote a political or social cause. They are occupying an empty building out in the woods. There are no hostages and no innocent people inside. If the media and law enforcement ignored them then they would eventually get bored and leave since the location they chose is entirely inconsequential to anything else.
B; They do not represent militias and other pro-American groups. They represent themselves.
C: Guess: The administration, Hillary and anti-American media will use this as an example for another anti-gun go round.
D: The cause is actually just even if it is just an excuse for them to make the news. The Hammonds got screwed over by the corrupt A-holes at BLM who fabricated lies about them. The fact they lit this back fire to burn away brush to head off a massive lightning caused fire on government land heading towards them and effectively saved the land is not something the media is telling everyone. Nor are they mentioning that a 1975 study proved that these fires were very beneficial to the ecology of the area. They also fail to mention this was a BLM land grab starting back in the 80s. Fun fact, a bunch of ranchers refused to sell their land so BLM dammed up a river and effectively flooded out the ranchers and bought the property at a much reduced rate and then removed the dam. That's the kind of government people we are dealing with. Also the prosecution in the case had 6 days to present evidence and only allowed the defense 1 and somehow the jury selection was railroaded by the judge to not allow anyone with any knowledge or experience of ranching or farming.
A: They are a illegally occupying a government building on government property, while armed and threatening to shoot the government if they attempt to remove them. I dunno, if somebody tells me they are going to shoot me, I get a little scared. Some would say, terrified. It seems the community in the area is taking them seriously enough, since schools have been closed.
B: That is pretty clear, people are distancing themselves from these guys real fast. It is pretty bad when the people you are protesting for tell you to go away, as well as the community you are attempting to
Col. Dash wrote: I didn't read the entire multi-page thread. A: they are not terrorists. They are not going out causing fear to promote a political or social cause. They are occupying an empty building out in the woods. There are no hostages and no innocent people inside. If the media and law enforcement ignored them then they would eventually get bored and leave since the location they chose is entirely inconsequential to anything else.
Probably should have read through it, then you would have seen how this is a text book definition of domestic terrorism, per US Code.
Yup... and hopefully... they'd realize that it's always better to harness all of that energy and enthusiasm into getting a legal team to begin challenging the federal government in court, rather making themselves look like asses.
I don't think going before the court and arguing that the Federal government is oppressing people by charging them with arson when they committed arson, or followed federal statues when a lower court ignored them, is going to go far.
What they need is to write the Congressmen and repeal mandatory minimums. Maybe band together and gather in a lobby of some sort so they can make their voices louder and easier to hear
You had some of these guys making goodbye videos to leave for their family as if they were going to die. I think some of them really want it to become something.
Col. Dash wrote: I didn't read the entire multi-page thread. A: they are not terrorists. They are not going out causing fear to promote a political or social cause. They are occupying an empty building out in the woods. There are no hostages and no innocent people inside. If the media and law enforcement ignored them then they would eventually get bored and leave since the location they chose is entirely inconsequential to anything else.
Probably should have read through it, then you would have seen how this is a text book definition of domestic terrorism, per US Code.
Per US criminal code. Other sections of the code say different things. Another commonly accepted definition (also in the US Code) is that terrorism must be aimed at innocent, noncombatant people. What the US criminal code refers to with "domestic terrorism" is what is more neutrally called civil disobedience or rebellion and is something that has been practiced by myriads of groups all over the world for perfectly valid and ethical goals. Calling it terrorism is just a convenient way for the government to put anti-government resistance away as "enemies of the people".
What these people do does not meet many other, more precise definitions of terrorism other than the one the US (and other governments) use to describe any anti-government group if it is politically convenient. Its definition is so broad that it makes pretty much every action against any government ever (including many US-supported groups, WW2 resistance groups and the US rebellion against Britain) into terrorists. It makes "Terrorist" into a meaningless buzzword.
Col. Dash wrote: I didn't read the entire multi-page thread. A: they are not terrorists. They are not going out causing fear to promote a political or social cause. They are occupying an empty building out in the woods. There are no hostages and no innocent people inside. If the media and law enforcement ignored them then they would eventually get bored and leave since the location they chose is entirely inconsequential to anything else.
Probably should have read through it, then you would have seen how this is a text book definition of domestic terrorism, per US Code.
Per US criminal code. Other sections of the code say different things. Another commonly accepted definition (also in the US Code) is that terrorism must be aimed at innocent, noncombatant people. What the US criminal code refers to with "domestic terrorism" is what is more neutrally called civil disobedience or rebellion and is something that has been practiced by myriads of groups all over the world for perfectly valid and ethical goals. Calling it terrorism is just a convenient way for the government to put anti-government resistance away as "enemies of the people".
What these people do does not meet many other, more precise definitions of terrorism other than the one the US (and other governments) use to describe any anti-government group if it is politically convenient. Its definition is so broad that it makes pretty much every action against any government ever (including many US-supported groups, WW2 resistance groups and the US rebellion against Britain) into terrorists. It makes "Terrorist" into a meaningless buzzword.
Yes... and the US Criminal Code is how these US Citizens will be dealt with, for the crimes that they are committing.
Frazzled wrote: Hardly, there's no legal issue across multiple jurisdictions. Trial rulings, even jury ones, can be revisited by appellate courts, and this one is easy. If the minimum term is X and the jury gives less than X, then thats not following the law and trial court should act.
Is that how it works in Oregon? That juries decide the sentence? Over here that's the Judge's job.
Frazzled wrote: Hardly, there's no legal issue across multiple jurisdictions. Trial rulings, even jury ones, can be revisited by appellate courts, and this one is easy. If the minimum term is X and the jury gives less than X, then thats not following the law and trial court should act.
Is that how it works in Oregon? That juries decide the sentence? Over here that's the Judge's job.
Juries recommend a sentence but it's the Judge's job to make the final ruling and, in the case of statutory minimums, meet the expectations of relevant laws. The trial judge imposed a sentence less than the mandatory minimum and the higher court revisited the case, found the discrepancy, and is insuring the legal minimum is met.
People can dislike mandatory minimums but if it's the law of the land, it needs to be followed until it's changed.
Pretty clear case, even the two people involved were planning on reporting as ordered (though understandably not liking it) now these yahoos show up and take center stage for the grand show.
Vash108 wrote: You had some of these guys making goodbye videos to leave for their family as if they were going to die. I think some of them really want it to become something.
Frazzled wrote: Hardly, there's no legal issue across multiple jurisdictions. Trial rulings, even jury ones, can be revisited by appellate courts, and this one is easy. If the minimum term is X and the jury gives less than X, then thats not following the law and trial court should act.
Is that how it works in Oregon? That juries decide the sentence? Over here that's the Judge's job.
Some jurisdictions have the judges do it, others are different. I do not know how the federal system does the punishment phase.
Making goodbye videos for your family is creepy as all hell.
I reckon if it was a group of Muslim extremists doing exactly the same thing it would be called terrorism and way more people would be freaking out.
Right Wing extremists have killed more people in the US than Jihadists since 9/11. Though obviously the numbers change significantly if you start counting from 9/10.
(Oh, and the IRA are a predominantly (but not exclusively) Catholic group - the UVF is the predominantly Protestant terrorist group in that conflict)
Ouze wrote: Man, we've got to remember this thread happened the next time someone claims there is no such thing as white privilege.
Agreed. If it were anybody else, that building would be a crater by now.
Bull gak.
I agree. I think the lessons from Waco and Ruby Ridge have been gone over time and again. Where was white privilage when all those kids died in a fire started by the ATF at Waco or when a dog and boy was shot from ambush or a mother holding a baby was shot by a sniper with a clear vision of her at Ruby Ridge? As I recall, that sniper got promoted.
Think about the situation. A group of people in an isolated area in the middle of the woods. There is no need to charge in like Rambo, just wait them out. Some people are too quick to yell white privilage.
When Alcatraz was taken over by AIM in a far more violent fashion, there were no guns blazing either. They were just waited out.
hotsauceman1 wrote: There is a nickname going around for these guys
YallQeada
I've seen "Vanilla isis" which whilst a bit wide of the mark trips off the tongue wonderfully.
It might trip of the tongue wonderfully, but minimizes the abomination of ISIS or Al Queada. As much as I despise militias based on personal contact with people in them, they don't go around decapitating men, women and children wholesale or kidnap and rape women by the thousands. ISIS and Al Qeada are in a league of their own.
Jan of 15? I suspect you could find a few more deaths from both groups since then, but I think the recent San Bernardino attack kills and the attacks on the recruiting stations will push the numbers towards the radical islamist cause...
Jan of 15? I suspect you could find a few more deaths from both groups since then, but I think the recent San Bernardino attack kills and the attacks on the recruiting stations will push the numbers towards the radical islamist cause...
Jan of 15? I suspect you could find a few more deaths from both groups since then, but I think the recent San Bernardino attack kills and the attacks on the recruiting stations will push the numbers towards the radical islamist cause...
I am sure the numbers on both sides have changed. I would be interested in finding an updated total. We have had serval people shot since then as well like that guy who shot up the Planned Parenthood site, his name was Robert Dear I think?
Jan of 15? I suspect you could find a few more deaths from both groups since then, but I think the recent San Bernardino attack kills and the attacks on the recruiting stations will push the numbers towards the radical islamist cause...
Relapse wrote: Think about the situation. A group of people in an isolated area in the middle of the woods. There is no need to charge in like Rambo, just wait them out. Some people are too quick to yell white privilage.
I agree that waiting on them is the best way to go forward, but I think you probably can't say with a straight face that if these guys had been carrying AK47s instead of AR-15s, and had hung an ISIL flag out front, and had been recorded reciting the prayer for the dying - much the way these guys did! - that the response would be the same.
I agree with Vash: you'd have Fox News every hour on the hour screaming about how weak Obama is about dealing with these terrorists on US soil, and how it's a military problem vs a law enforcement problem. You wouldn't have Jihadin rooting for them to "stick it to the man". For damn sure, you wouldn't have people quibbling about the exact precise number of people killed by domestic terrorists since 9/11 in a sort of sick way to downplay domestic extremism.
One point: You wouldn't see Jihadists do this type of thing in the US. It is totally against their targeting and messaging. Trying to compare this to a Jihadist attack, you need to look at domestic Jihadist attacks. They target things like the 'draw Mohamed' convention, or nice soft targets like the Christmas party they recently hit. They don't occupy buildings in the middle of the woods to make a point.
So, build the straw man waving his straw DaIsh banner all you want, it isn't the template they follow at all.
I'm rooting for them. Like I rooted for Bundy. One has to see how far they can go. When it becomes Racist then I stop rooting for them. If becomes a shootout....I want the video so I can dissect it like I do all others
Edit
Bundy Press Conference on Fox News
Human Rights? WTH.....Citizens for Constitutional Freedom......restore and defend the Constitution....Right to live in liberty...right to own property...reap the fruits of their labor.....Ranchers under assault by multiple Federal agency to take land from them...Private water being fenced off by the Fed's even though Oregon government ruled they have water rights....
Think I go hit myself in the head with a hammer instead of listening this guy.....
To be honest, I am still not getting what the fuss is all about. There is a group of guys sitting in some empty building in the woods, "protesting". To me it kinda feels like that one South Park episode: Why not just leave them be and wait until they get tired and come out?
Relapse wrote: As I said earlier, they don't want comparisons to Waco or Ruby Ridge, either.
In this case, there is no comparison to Waco or Ruby Ridge as (according to the militia), they have no families present.
That is what made Waco and Ruby Ridge such clusterfecks. The presence of families on the premises.
First guy from the militia who points a weapon towards LEOs should get dropped, pure and simple.
The Bundy ranch standoff was stupidly handled as it allowed these kinds of yahoos to think that it's okay to do this garbage, but LEOs had their hands tied as these nutjobs brought their kids and wives to the "event" knowing they were going to be pointing guns at LEOs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: One point: You wouldn't see Jihadists do this type of thing in the US. It is totally against their targeting and messaging. Trying to compare this to a Jihadist attack, you need to look at domestic Jihadist attacks. They target things like the 'draw Mohamed' convention, or nice soft targets like the Christmas party they recently hit. They don't occupy buildings in the middle of the woods to make a point.
So, build the straw man waving his straw DaIsh banner all you want, it isn't the template they follow at all.
That's not strictly true. Jihadist attacks are strictly that: attacks. But that doesn't mean that jihadist groups don't perform attacks/actions that are not intended to be suicide attacks.
CptJake wrote: One point: You wouldn't see Jihadists do this type of thing in the US. It is totally against their targeting and messaging. Trying to compare this to a Jihadist attack, you need to look at domestic Jihadist attacks. They target things like the 'draw Mohamed' convention, or nice soft targets like the Christmas party they recently hit. They don't occupy buildings in the middle of the woods to make a point.
So, build the straw man waving his straw DaIsh banner all you want, it isn't the template they follow at all.
That's not strictly true. Jihadist attacks are strictly that: attacks. But that doesn't mean that jihadist groups don't perform attacks/actions that are not intended to be suicide attacks.
I suspect you don't understand what I wrote. I never mentioned 'suicide attacks', I've never (in this topic or any other) indicated a belief that all or even most Jihadist attacks are suicide attacks.
Though I do thank you for helping make my point, occupying a building in the middle of nowhere is not an 'attack', especially not in the way Jihadist view them. It is not the type of action anyone in the intel or LEO field would worry about jihadists committing. It does not fit the (very loose) template they follow at all.
CptJake wrote: One point: You wouldn't see Jihadists do this type of thing in the US. It is totally against their targeting and messaging. Trying to compare this to a Jihadist attack, you need to look at domestic Jihadist attacks. They target things like the 'draw Mohamed' convention, or nice soft targets like the Christmas party they recently hit. They don't occupy buildings in the middle of the woods to make a point.
So, build the straw man waving his straw DaIsh banner all you want, it isn't the template they follow at all.
That's not strictly true. Jihadist attacks are strictly that: attacks. But that doesn't mean that jihadist groups don't perform attacks/actions that are not intended to be suicide attacks.
I suspect you don't understand what I wrote. I never mentioned 'suicide attacks', I've never (in this topic or any other) indicated a belief that all or even most Jihadist attacks are suicide attacks.
I understood what you wrote. I think you don't understand why Ouze made the comparison he did. You specifically brought up two attacks where the perpetrators had no plans to be taken alive--that's great, but both of those were intended to be suicide attacks. They left messages behind, they made arrangements for things that would be done after their deaths, etc.
That's the methodology behind these so-called "jihadist attacks"--they are homegrown terrorists, inspired by the rhetoric from these jihadist groups where their goal is to cause as much death and destruction as possible before being brought down. They prepare themselves for death, knowing that they are not going to be taken alive.
It's not unlike what has been happening in Oregon. There's reports of these militiamen sending videos/messages to their families as though they expect to die.
Though I do thank you for helping make my point, occupying a building in the middle of nowhere is not an 'attack', especially not in the way Jihadist view them. It is not the type of action anyone in the intel or LEO field would worry about jihadists committing. It does not fit the (very loose) template they follow at all.
Occupying something by force is actually something that most certainly could be construed by attack, hence why Ouze made the comparison he did to begin with and said not a single damn thing about jihadists.
You brought the term jihadist into this line of conversation.
The difference here, Kan, is that I don't believe anyone thinks this is more than a show. Low-profile building, out of the way location, lots of big talk and that's it. They'll stay a while to prove their point and then quietly leave.
The notes and whatnot to family are just being made because they want people to believe that "the government" doesn't want them to be heard and will kill them to shut them up.
agnosto wrote: The difference here, Kan, is that I don't believe anyone thinks this is more than a show. Low-profile building, out of the way location, lots of big talk and that's it. They'll stay a while to prove their point and then quietly leave.
Right, but at the same time it emboldens them for the future.
Nip that crap in the bud. I can almost guarantee that if the Bundy ranch standoff had gone differently? We wouldn't be having this right here.
The notes and whatnot to family are just being made because they want people to believe that "the government" doesn't want them to be heard and will kill them to shut them up.
Of course that's the point--but hey, what is it that a large number of the Dakka ex-military types say whenever it's Islamic terrorism?
"If they want to be martyrs, why not let them be"?
If these people think that they have a tyrannical government--hey, let's give them one!
Have you heard the various terms being thrown about as hashtags? Some of them are pretty great.
YAllQaeda, VanillaISIS, and groups that are waging "YeeHawd" amused me to no end.
The wife texted me about VanillaIsis, but everytime I think it I get that stupid Ice Ice Baby song stuck in my head again, and there's only so many times you can dunk your own head in a toilet to drown out the screaming until your office workers start to become concerned.
agnosto wrote: The difference here, Kan, is that I don't believe anyone thinks this is more than a show. Low-profile building, out of the way location, lots of big talk and that's it. They'll stay a while to prove their point and then quietly leave.
Right, but at the same time it emboldens them for the future.
Nip that crap in the bud. I can almost guarantee that if the Bundy ranch standoff had gone differently? We wouldn't be having this right here.
The notes and whatnot to family are just being made because they want people to believe that "the government" doesn't want them to be heard and will kill them to shut them up.
Of course that's the point--but hey, what is it that a large number of the Dakka ex-military types say whenever it's Islamic terrorism?
"If they want to be martyrs, why not let them be"?
If these people think that they have a tyrannical government--hey, let's give them one!
They were already emboldened when they got away with the highway standoff last year or whenever it was.
How much is it going to cost to have cops up there 24/7, in the cold, monitoring these wackos to make sure they don't do something stupid and hurt themselves?
agnosto wrote: The difference here, Kan, is that I don't believe anyone thinks this is more than a show. Low-profile building, out of the way location, lots of big talk and that's it. They'll stay a while to prove their point and then quietly leave.
Right, but at the same time it emboldens them for the future.
Nip that crap in the bud. I can almost guarantee that if the Bundy ranch standoff had gone differently? We wouldn't be having this right here.
The notes and whatnot to family are just being made because they want people to believe that "the government" doesn't want them to be heard and will kill them to shut them up.
Of course that's the point--but hey, what is it that a large number of the Dakka ex-military types say whenever it's Islamic terrorism?
"If they want to be martyrs, why not let them be"?
If these people think that they have a tyrannical government--hey, let's give them one!
They were already emboldened when they got away with the highway standoff last year or whenever it was.
How much is it going to cost to have cops up there 24/7, in the cold, monitoring these wackos to make sure they don't do something stupid and hurt themselves?
A stupid amount--let's make these yahoos pay it all back.
The Bundy guys didn't use force to occupy the building, which was empty. They say they are prepared to use force to defend themselves if attacked while in it, but at the moment they are no threat to anyone.
As Relapse and Ouze both said, the best way to tackle this situation is to keep a light perimeter to stop the Bundys sloping off or receiving supplies from supporters, stop bystanders from getting into trouble by approaching, do nothing, and wait for the protestors to get fed up and decide to go home. Send in a negotiator once a day to check on progress of the Bundys' morale.
When they eventually decide to go home, you need a policy about whether to detain them or just let them go.
Have you heard the various terms being thrown about as hashtags? Some of them are pretty great.
YAllQaeda, VanillaISIS, and groups that are waging "YeeHawd" amused me to no end.
The wife texted me about VanillaIsis, but everytime I think it I get that stupid Ice Ice Baby song stuck in my head again, and there's only so many times you can dunk your own head in a toilet to drown out the screaming until your office workers start to become concerned.
I gotcha covered on this one Frazz!
Yo, CCF (Citizens for Constitutional Freedom), let's kick it!
ISIS ISIS baby, ISIS ISIS baby
All right stop, standoff, and listen
Bundy is back with my brand new invention
I grab a hold of my gun tightly
Talk like a crazy fool daily and nightly
Will it ever stop? Yo, I don't know
Turn off your brains and I'll glow
To the extreme I write graffiti like a vandal
Light up a news camera and wax my knob like a candle
I understood what you wrote. I think you don't understand why Ouze made the comparison he did. You specifically brought up two attacks where the perpetrators had no plans to be taken alive--that's great, but both of those were intended to be suicide attacks. They left messages behind, they made arrangements for things that would be done after their deaths, etc.
That's the methodology behind these so-called "jihadist attacks"--they are homegrown terrorists, inspired by the rhetoric from these jihadist groups where their goal is to cause as much death and destruction as possible before being brought down. They prepare themselves for death, knowing that they are not going to be taken alive.
It's not unlike what has been happening in Oregon. There's reports of these militiamen sending videos/messages to their families as though they expect to die.
Though I do thank you for helping make my point, occupying a building in the middle of nowhere is not an 'attack', especially not in the way Jihadist view them. It is not the type of action anyone in the intel or LEO field would worry about jihadists committing. It does not fit the (very loose) template they follow at all.
Occupying something by force is actually something that most certainly could be construed by attack, hence why Ouze made the comparison he did to begin with and said not a single damn thing about jihadists.
You brought the term jihadist into this line of conversation.
You really don't want to get it. Occupying an isolated building in the woods is not an 'attack' you're gonna se by jihadist. It just isn't. And there is no real indication the San Bernardino crew wanted to die. There is indication they intended to hit more targets.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Bundy guys didn't use force to occupy the building, which was empty. They say they are prepared to use force to defend themselves if attacked while in it, but at the moment they are no threat to anyone.
As Relapse and Ouze both said, the best way to tackle this situation is to keep a light perimeter to stop the Bundys sloping off or receiving supplies from supporters, stop bystanders from getting into trouble by approaching, do nothing, and wait for the protestors to get fed up and decide to go home. Send in a negotiator once a day to check on progress of the Bundys' morale.
When they eventually decide to go home, you need a policy about whether to detain them or just let them go.
It wasn't "empty" as much as it was "closed for the weekend", for what it's worth. I known some folks like to minimize this as a cabin, but it's actually a federal workspace.
I heard on the radio that they set up an armed roadblock to an observation tower now as well, anybody have anything on that?
Protesters have occupied a branch of Games Workshop in protest at rules changes which mean they may lose their favourite characters.
Described as ‘militant’ warhammer players, the group of 150 seized the Stevenage branch over New Year when it was lightly guarded and announced their intention to ‘kill or be killed’ in order to defend their expertly painted miniatures.
Warhammer fans are known as a tight-knit and insular group who live in seclusion, shun outsiders and massively overreact to any perceived threat to their highly prized armies.
Recent rules updates to Warhammer are believed to have sparked the protests, with thousands of players expected to lose to prized heroes and years of effort in learning complex, byzantine rules exploit, and this is seen as another flareup in years of conflict between Games Workshop and their customers.
Calling themselves Aelf-Queda, the group have confirmed their willingness to stay for years, as they’ve now got loads of figures and paints which will keep them occupied pretty much indefinitely.
Speaking to us through a pair of tin cans and a piece of string, Aelf-Queda member Simon Williams told us that the group had to take a “Hard Stand” over Games Workshop’s treatment of loyal customers.
“We’re calling on other groups to stand up and join us”, he said. “Especially anyone with a Chaos or Slaanesh army, as those bad boys can really tip things in your favour”.
“Why, no, I’ve never felt the loving touch of a woman, why do you ask?”
Games Workshop are reported to be ‘not that fussed’ by the protesters as they might not like the new rules but they’re still buying them.
I understood what you wrote. I think you don't understand why Ouze made the comparison he did. You specifically brought up two attacks where the perpetrators had no plans to be taken alive--that's great, but both of those were intended to be suicide attacks. They left messages behind, they made arrangements for things that would be done after their deaths, etc.
That's the methodology behind these so-called "jihadist attacks"--they are homegrown terrorists, inspired by the rhetoric from these jihadist groups where their goal is to cause as much death and destruction as possible before being brought down. They prepare themselves for death, knowing that they are not going to be taken alive.
It's not unlike what has been happening in Oregon. There's reports of these militiamen sending videos/messages to their families as though they expect to die.
Though I do thank you for helping make my point, occupying a building in the middle of nowhere is not an 'attack', especially not in the way Jihadist view them. It is not the type of action anyone in the intel or LEO field would worry about jihadists committing. It does not fit the (very loose) template they follow at all.
Occupying something by force is actually something that most certainly could be construed by attack, hence why Ouze made the comparison he did to begin with and said not a single damn thing about jihadists.
You brought the term jihadist into this line of conversation.
You really don't want to get it.
No, I do want to get it. Unfortunately you really stuck your foot in it when you made an inept comparison to jihadists to begin with, ignoring the meat and potato of Ouze's comparison:
If this was a group with AKs and an ISIL flag having taken over the building--do you really think people like yourself would be saying "ride it out"?
Occupying an isolated building in the woods is not an 'attack' you're gonna see by jihadist. It just isn't.
Occupying an "isolated building in the woods" might not be an attack that a suicide attacker might make, certainly.
But an "isolated building in the woods" that is property of the US government is a different story, and you should well know that.
And there is no real indication the San Bernardino crew wanted to die.
"Wanting to die" and "being prepared to die" are not the same thing. If you want to argue semantics, be aware of them.
The San Bernadino crew made arrangements for their infant child, if that doesn't say "prepared to die"--I don't know what does.
There is indication they intended to hit more targets.
Yeah, and? The Tsarnev brothers wanted to hit more targets too. These kinds of attackers have more than one target they plan to hit. It doesn't mean that their intention is to actually hit all of them.
Well,the gak has hit the fan,now. President Lin, er Obama is calling on the northern states to provide 75,000 volunteers to help protect federal property.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Bundy guys didn't use force to occupy the building, which was empty. They say they are prepared to use force to defend themselves if attacked while in it, but at the moment they are no threat to anyone.
Whether the building was empty or not, it was likely locked up. In order to have gotten in--they would have needed to use force. Additionally, them claiming that they are "prepared to use force to defend themselves if attacked or threatened with forcible removal" is using force to occupy the building.
As Relapse and Ouze both said, the best way to tackle this situation is to keep a light perimeter to stop the Bundys sloping off or receiving supplies from supporters, stop bystanders from getting into trouble by approaching, do nothing, and wait for the protestors to get fed up and decide to go home. Send in a negotiator once a day to check on progress of the Bundys' morale.
Yeah, no. The best way to tackle this situation is to fire up one of those wonderful APCs that a large number of police organizations got from DHS as part of the "war on terror/drugs" and go in heavy-handed.
These schmucks don't respect anything but force, so use it.
When they eventually decide to go home, you need a policy about whether to detain them or just let them go.
There's no "or" involved. They get detained, they get sentenced, and they get federal prison time. This is a felony--so they lose their guns too.
Sell their firearms or give them to the BLM. No more of this "Hurr, them Federal guys can't tell me whattado!" crap.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well,the gak has hit the fan,now. President Lin, er Obama is calling on the northern states to provide 75,000 volunteers to help protect federal property.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Bundy guys didn't use force to occupy the building, which was empty. They say they are prepared to use force to defend themselves if attacked while in it, but at the moment they are no threat to anyone.
Whether the building was empty or not, it was likely locked up. In order to have gotten in--they would have needed to use force. Additionally, them claiming that they are "prepared to use force to defend themselves if attacked or threatened with forcible removal" is using force to occupy the building.
As Relapse and Ouze both said, the best way to tackle this situation is to keep a light perimeter to stop the Bundys sloping off or receiving supplies from supporters, stop bystanders from getting into trouble by approaching, do nothing, and wait for the protestors to get fed up and decide to go home. Send in a negotiator once a day to check on progress of the Bundys' morale.
Yeah, no. The best way to tackle this situation is to fire up one of those wonderful APCs that a large number of police organizations got from DHS as part of the "war on terror/drugs" and go in heavy-handed.
These schmucks don't respect anything but force, so use it.
When they eventually decide to go home, you need a policy about whether to detain them or just let them go.
There's no "or" involved. They get detained, they get sentenced, and they get federal prison time. This is a felony--so they lose their guns too.
Sell their firearms or give them to the BLM. No more of this "Hurr, them Federal guys can't tell me whattado!" crap.
Its scary when Kanluwen and I are on the same page.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Bundy guys didn't use force to occupy the building, which was empty. They say they are prepared to use force to defend themselves if attacked while in it, but at the moment they are no threat to anyone.
Whether the building was empty or not, it was likely locked up. In order to have gotten in--they would have needed to use force. Additionally, them claiming that they are "prepared to use force to defend themselves if attacked or threatened with forcible removal" is using force to occupy the building.
...
Force in the legal context of robbery and terrorism is violently attacking people, not breaking a lock.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Bundy guys didn't use force to occupy the building, which was empty. They say they are prepared to use force to defend themselves if attacked while in it, but at the moment they are no threat to anyone.
Whether the building was empty or not, it was likely locked up. In order to have gotten in--they would have needed to use force. Additionally, them claiming that they are "prepared to use force to defend themselves if attacked or threatened with forcible removal" is using force to occupy the building.
Force in the legal context of robbery and terrorism is violently attacking people, not breaking a lock.
Actually, "forced entry" is considered part of the category of unlawful violence.
You like people who have your politics and you make allowances for these things (ie, OWS), and you want people whose politics you hate to be arrested (ie, not-OWS).
For the record. Both the Oregon group and OWS should be arrested and charged accordingly.
It may seem obvious to me, but to me he was saying he believes that you are willing to make allowances for people you agree with whilst not giving the same to ones you don't.
If you can't see the difference between a nonviolent protest doing passive resistance and a group of extremists declaring war on the US and seizing a government facility, while armed and threatening violence, there is really nothing I can say to you bro.
You go on being you.
Also, I don't recall ever advocating anyone who broke laws during OWS be given a free pass.
Ouze wrote: If you can't see the difference between a nonviolent protest doing passive resistance and a group of extremists declaring war on the US and seizing a government facility, while armed and threatening violence, there is really nothing I can say to you bro.
Ouze wrote: If you can't see the difference between a nonviolent protest doing passive resistance and a group of extremists declaring war on the US and seizing a government facility, while armed and threatening violence, there is really nothing I can say to you bro.
You go on being you.
Also, I don't recall ever advocating anyone who broke laws during OWS be given a free pass.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well,the gak has hit the fan,now. President Lin, er Obama is calling on the northern states to provide 75,000 volunteers to help protect federal property.
First, McDowell, bold and gay, set forth the shortest way,
By Manassas in the pleasant summer weather,
But unfortunately ran on a Stonewall, foolish man,
And had a "rocky journey" altogether;
And he found it rather hard to ride o'er Beauregard,
And Johnston proved a deuce of a bother,
And 'twas clear beyond a doubt that he didn't like the route,
And a second time would have to try another.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote: It may seem obvious to me, but to me he was saying he believes that you are willing to make allowances for people you agree with whilst not giving the same to ones you don't.
It's hardly unknown for one man's terrorist to be another's freedom fighter.
whembly wrote: I wasn't implying that there were no arrest.
Just that the whole ordeal were whitewashed to OWS' favor by the media.
You appear to be supporting the idea that OWS was somehow favored by the media with a link to a CNN op-ed whose first 3 paragraphs are dedicated to showing how OWS is being unfairly treated by the media.
ITT: "Reasonable" people drawing comparisons between rednecks in an empty building in the Oregon wilderness, and an international terrorist organization that murders women and children by the thousands, and then calling for said rednecks to be killed by the government.
These guys are not terrorists-they are slack-jawed donkey caves, who are grabbing the spotlight for their 15 minutes, while posturing like anyone with your average Napoleon complex. Starve them out, and sigh while giving them their attention.
However....they cannot be seen as harmless. They are armed and made a legitimate threat. The moment they fire the first shot- then all bets are off and they become domestic terrorists, and should be dealt with as such. Too bad, they gave the warning themselves.
agnosto wrote: The difference here, Kan, is that I don't believe anyone thinks this is more than a show. Low-profile building, out of the way location, lots of big talk and that's it. They'll stay a while to prove their point and then quietly leave.
Right, but at the same time it emboldens them for the future.
Nip that crap in the bud. I can almost guarantee that if the Bundy ranch standoff had gone differently? We wouldn't be having this right here.
The notes and whatnot to family are just being made because they want people to believe that "the government" doesn't want them to be heard and will kill them to shut them up.
Of course that's the point--but hey, what is it that a large number of the Dakka ex-military types say whenever it's Islamic terrorism?
"If they want to be martyrs, why not let them be"?
If these people think that they have a tyrannical government--hey, let's give them one!
Big mistake if they kill these guys. I have friends that used to be in a
militia and I would have them tell me how the government was scared of them and it was only a matter of time before they started getting killed by agents of the government. I was told they were willing to fight and die against the loss of their rights so their kids didn't have to. They carried around a pocket version of the Constitution and would quote the Fedralist Papers to me. Their group of about 100 or so had grey urban camaflauge BDU's, ID cards that closely mimicked Army ID cards. They would receive copies of some kind of national militia news magazine, and were excited to show me their group featured in one. They would do drills with their group like a regular Guard unit, all the while saying it was for the defense of the Constitution. Granted, most of them couldn't find their own butt with both hands and a map, and they told me about an incident where, during one of their night exericises, 5 of them got lost and ended up on some farmer's land. The farmer noticed them, and put a gun on them, taking their weapons and calling police to collect the group. One of these guys was a goofy looking moron who liked to think of himself in the mold of Mac Bolan, and I would always piss him off by calling him the court jester or Mac Jester. It got to the point that the other militia began calling him that, making for me, a real special place in his heart.
We had a taster of what militias are like with the Bundy Ranch debacle. The government didn't do itself any favors there, either, pissing off and scaring the locals with the way they handled the situation.
I think they're doing this one just right. Wait them out in the Wilie whacks and avoid shooting to keep other militia out of the affair.
I'm going to side with terrorist for Bundy...or whoever the spokeman is for Citizen for Constitution.....mental hardship listening to the guy who is totally unprepared to speak to a group of people...let along have a chain of thought viewpoint. I've trained SPC and below who can conduct classes to senior leadership and not be intimidated by them....even coining them for ballsy moves....this guy....eesshhh
Kilkrazy wrote: The Bundy guys didn't use force to occupy the building, which was empty. They say they are prepared to use force to defend themselves if attacked while in it, but at the moment they are no threat to anyone.
Whether the building was empty or not, it was likely locked up. In order to have gotten in--they would have needed to use force. Additionally, them claiming that they are "prepared to use force to defend themselves if attacked or threatened with forcible removal" is using force to occupy the building.
Force in the legal context of robbery and terrorism is violently attacking people, not breaking a lock.
Actually, "forced entry" is considered part of the category of unlawful violence.
Yes, but it isn't what a typical member of the public considers to be violence. They didn't fight their way into a defended building.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Bundy guys didn't use force to occupy the building, which was empty. They say they are prepared to use force to defend themselves if attacked while in it, but at the moment they are no threat to anyone.
Whether the building was empty or not, it was likely locked up. In order to have gotten in--they would have needed to use force. Additionally, them claiming that they are "prepared to use force to defend themselves if attacked or threatened with forcible removal" is using force to occupy the building.
Force in the legal context of robbery and terrorism is violently attacking people, not breaking a lock.
Actually, "forced entry" is considered part of the category of unlawful violence.
Yes, but it isn't what a typical member of the public considers to be violence. They didn't fight their way into a defended building.
Currently they have done nothing more than Civil Obedience. No worse than BLM taking and holding an interstate and holding the people trapped on it hostage. BLM even attacked people who decided to say screw the blockade. Its the same as any other protest group that occupies a government building in protest. Media makes a circus of it but for the most part, the general population labels them as crazy and ignores them. No one has been injured or threatened, and no saying you will defend your self if attacked isn't giving a threat. Its a federal facility on federal park land. I know you can have a weapon on park land elsewhere and even in federal buildings on park land. I have had classes before on sites like this.
They cannot be compared to ISIS since being in ISIS is enough to get you arrested. They are a declared terrorist group who actually does go and kill people. The worst being in a militia will cause(provided they don't actually do anything) is keep you from getting a Secret Clearance or getting fired from a government job.
Col. Dash wrote: No one has been injured or threatened, and no saying you will defend your self if attacked isn't giving a threat
If you're doing something illegal, and the people you are "defending yourself" against are the police who are enforcing the law, it's not a valid application of self defense. Does this really need to be said?
Well actually, that depends. There are some jurisdictions and lots of case law that PoPo actions cannot be disproportionate to what is happening. For example, if the police are enforcing a parking issue and they attempt to shoot you, you had/have the right to self defense at that point. In Texas it was even codified for decades, being written as a way to protect against carpetbaggers.
of course the defense under the law was not allowed when certain groups tried it when they were being oppressed (aka being lynched).
But of course in this instance you are completely correct. Even using normal self defense doctrine they cannot use deadly force to resist entrance when that party itself is not using deadly force or the reasonable threat therein. Legal traditions and case law are such that a criminal defendant would get laughed right to the needle room for such a defense.
I do believe I just went full circle there didn't I. (to be clear Ouze I'm agreeing with you, just noting there's always the never say never rule when it comes to law). I need some more coffee.
Anyway, they are cutting the power today. I'm sure these guys have generators, but I'm equally sure they don't have a enormous amount of gas with which to run them...
Spoiler:
Also, that doesn't look like a few months worth of food for a substantial number of people.
Never said it was self defense. If they shoot someone during this standoff then they are as guilty of the crime as anyone else. But declaring you will defend yourself if attacked does not constitute a threat. Anyone can say this about themselves and it is not a threat. If they said they were going to go bomb some place or go on a shooting spree at the mall, that would constitute an actionable threat, and from what I have read, they have been careful not to say that type of thing.
I think if no one gets hurt and this is resolved peacefully along with an unbiased judge unlike the one who dealt with the Hammonds, then this will result in no more than a slap on the wrist for them for unlawful assembly and civil disorder. BLM physically assaulted and caused damage to people breaking their blockade with the police standing there watching and after the fact they spent a few hours in jail and went home. If BLM isn't labeled terrorists than neither should these guys.
Anyway, they are cutting the power today. I'm sure these guys have generators, but I'm equally sure they don't have a enormous amount of gas with which to run them...
Spoiler:
Also, that doesn't look like a few months worth of food for a substantial number of people.
Is it me, or besides a case of canned soup or something, their biggest meal looks like a 50 lb bag of dog food in the back. Rusty the wonder dog approves of their planning.
I'm no Lawyer or Judge, but if I served time. Then was released and later ordered back to jail because someone felt I didn't do enough time, well then I tell them to feth off, too. Bundy however is using this to serve his own needs not the Hammonds.
At one point the Oath Keepers were planning on providing guns and rifles to the Ferguson protesters for open carry so that they could protest and "defend themselves" from police aggression in a similar manner. Someone realized that was a bad idea.
jhe90 wrote: honestly, safest way is to leave leave them alone, don't give them a spotlight and they will walk out peacefully in the end.
it may take time but its better than people getting killed. just wait them out.
Judging from their vast horde of food stocks, looks like it will take about three days.
Easy then. keep them isolated for 3-4 days and all is done. let them walk out and offer them pizza if they do so. just stop supplies or people going in.
People are overlooking the symbolic value of taking over a federal building. Doesn't America have a NATO style article that states: an attack on any federal building is considered an attack on every federal building?
jhe90 wrote: honestly, safest way is to leave leave them alone, don't give them a spotlight and they will walk out peacefully in the end.
it may take time but its better than people getting killed. just wait them out.
Judging from their vast horde of food stocks, looks like it will take about three days.
Easy then. keep them isolated for 3-4 days and all is done. let them walk out and offer them pizza if they do so. just stop supplies or people going in.
Set up an ongoing barbque, where the smell of the food continually wafts toward the building they've taken over.
The main problem with calling what they are doing "civil disobedience" is their threat against law enforcement IMO.
One of the main points of civil disobedience is that the folks committing acts of it are prepared for the reality that they will be arrested and that they are willing to be arrested. It's a mindset of: "this law isn't just and I'm not going to follow it. I know that it is on the books, I know that it will be enforced, but I'm not going to follow it. I know that I will be arrested and I won't resist when they arrest me so that my arrest can serve as an example of the unjust laws." The whole non-violence thing is what puts the "civil" in "civil disobedience".
The problem with a lot of "civil disobedience" activists nowadays is that a lot of them are no longer willing to accept the whole "You will be arrested for this, and that is the point of doing it" thing. And at no point does civil disobedience include a threat of violence against the police.
Anyway, they are cutting the power today. I'm sure these guys have generators, but I'm equally sure they don't have a enormous amount of gas with which to run them...
Spoiler:
Also, that doesn't look like a few months worth of food for a substantial number of people.
Is it me, or besides a case of canned soup or something, their biggest meal looks like a 50 lb bag of dog food in the back. Rusty the wonder dog approves of their planning.
Relapse wrote: Set up an ongoing barbque, where the smell of the food continually wafts toward the building they've taken over.
That's truly horrible - a siege with loud Guns N' Roses is one thing, but that's the next level.
Mercy is for the weak.
This is a federal issue. Which means that after the fact there will be hearings by senators and congressmen about why they didn't use Texas/KC/Memphis Style BBQ, special select committees about why they used beef instead of pork, attack ads by the beef and pork lobbies.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: People are overlooking the symbolic value of taking over a federal building. Doesn't America have a NATO style article that states: an attack on any federal building is considered an attack on every federal building?
No man left behind, no building left unguarded
Send in leathernecks to "secure" the building. I am sure at least two bricks will remain standing.
Relapse wrote: Set up an ongoing barbque, where the smell of the food continually wafts toward the building they've taken over.
That's truly horrible - a siege with loud Guns N' Roses is one thing, but that's the next level.
Mercy is for the weak.
This is a federal issue. Which means that after the fact there will be hearings by senators and congressmen about why they didn't use Texas/KC/Memphis Style BBQ, special select committees about why they used beef instead of pork, attack ads by the beef and pork lobbies.
jhe90 wrote: honestly, safest way is to leave leave them alone, don't give them a spotlight and they will walk out peacefully in the end.
it may take time but its better than people getting killed. just wait them out.
Judging from their vast horde of food stocks, looks like it will take about three days.
Easy then. keep them isolated for 3-4 days and all is done. let them walk out and offer them pizza if they do so. just stop supplies or people going in.
Set up an ongoing barbque, where the smell of the food continually wafts toward the building they've taken over.
Better idea.
Keep them penned into the building and supply them with food drops.
Loudly broadcast the Spice Girls on repeat, maybe with Hanson and the occassional repeat of Drake's cellphone song, along with the BBQ upwind and this thing would be over pretty dang quick and they would be asking to be arrested.
Safety Dance is a great song. Its actually on my MP3 player and I sing along while driving. Should not be used for psychological warfare, everyone, including the LEOs would just sing along.
So, because my feed is full of college students, im seeing some interesting comments.
One being that it is only white people who have the right to be armed, while the other is comparing how Black Lives Matter protestors are regularly beaton by police for half of what these guys are doing, when I cant find any example of that in which it wasnt violence met with force.
BLM as far as I am aware has never been beaten by police. Police pretty much have sat on the sidelines and watched and waited for a protestor to cross the line and even then in some cases did very little. Helps that usually the media is covering every square inch of the protests just to be lucky enough to film an incident like that and no policeman really wants to be "that guy" on national television doing something wrong.
As for this case, its less that the white people are armed and more that the authorities don't see a need to intervene physically and risk an armed confrontation and lost officers when all they have to do is sit back and monitor. If it was a true terrorist group then yeah, maybe they would be a bit more proactive, especially in an occupied area, and even more so if hostages were involved. But what appears to be a insignificant building and gym in the middle of nowhere. Not worth losing any officers over.
Didn't we use music (van halen, I think) to try to freak out Noriega? What music would you play for these fellows? Dixie Chicks? Woody Guthrie's "my land is your land"?
Gordon Shumway wrote: Didn't we use music (van halen, I think) to try to freak out Noriega? What music would you play for these fellows? Dixie Chicks? Woody Guthrie's "my land is your land"?
Jihadin wrote: How do you think we got Noriega out of the Vatican Embassy in Panama.....actually how many here remember him or going to combat into Panama....
I remember Panama. Wasn't there, but do remember it. Funny thing was that the US was OK with him until he stopped fighting the CIAs enemies. Seems Saddam familiar, I just Karimov it from my mind. Maybe if I Pinochet it....
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, because my feed is full of college students, im seeing some interesting comments.
One being that it is only white people who have the right to be armed, while the other is comparing how Black Lives Matter protestors are regularly beaton by police for half of what these guys are doing, when I cant find any example of that in which it wasnt violence met with force.
Could it be the Sulu Dance instead? That would make those militia men run out screaming. Or, maybe, they'd embrace one another in brotherly love. Either way, siege over.
Big mistake if they kill these guys. I have friends that used to be in a
militia and I would have them tell me how the government was scared of them and it was only a matter of time before they started getting killed by agents of the government. I was told they were willing to fight and die against the loss of their rights so their kids didn't have to. They carried around a pocket version of the Constitution and would quote the Fedralist Papers to me. Their group of about 100 or so had grey urban camaflauge BDU's, ID cards that closely mimicked Army ID cards. They would receive copies of some kind of national militia news magazine, and were excited to show me their group featured in one. They would do drills with their group like a regular Guard unit, all the while saying it was for the defense of the Constitution.
So you had friends that were "tacticool" basically.
Slightly Off-Topic, but is carrying around a copy of the Constitution and killing people better than killing people while carrying a Koran or the Bible? Obviously the former has never happened in any serious number, but as an American I'm not sure I really want to delve into that answer.
The one thing I do think is funny is all the derp comments online that are amazed a "blue" state like Oregon could have large numbers of radical libretarians and right-wingers. It's almost as if they've never spent any time in the PNW.
But seriously we were all guessing for this to happen in Idaho before Oregon, right? Even though they are right there next to each other. Why are there so many gorgeous women in Idaho or for that matter all of the PNW? Is it the fresh air? The conifers maybe? Is it that decisdous trees produce less beautiful animals in their area? Elk are kinda more majestic than whitetails, but I don't envy quartering one and backpacking it out.
Big mistake if they kill these guys. I have friends that used to be in a
militia and I would have them tell me how the government was scared of them and it was only a matter of time before they started getting killed by agents of the government. I was told they were willing to fight and die against the loss of their rights so their kids didn't have to. They carried around a pocket version of the Constitution and would quote the Fedralist Papers to me. Their group of about 100 or so had grey urban camaflauge BDU's, ID cards that closely mimicked Army ID cards. They would receive copies of some kind of national militia news magazine, and were excited to show me their group featured in one. They would do drills with their group like a regular Guard unit, all the while saying it was for the defense of the Constitution.
So you had friends that were "tacticool" basically.
Slightly Off-Topic, but is carrying around a copy of the Constitution and killing people better than killing people while carrying a Koran or the Bible? Obviously the former has never happened in any serious number, but as an American I'm not sure I really want to delve into that answer.
The one thing I do think is funny is all the derp comments online that are amazed a "blue" state like Oregon could have large numbers of radical libretarians and right-wingers. It's almost as if they've never spent any time in the PNW.
But seriously we were all guessing for this to happen in Idaho before Oregon, right? Even though they are right there next to each other. Why are there so many gorgeous women in Idaho or for that matter all of the PNW? Is it the fresh air? The conifers maybe? Is it that decisdous trees produce less beautiful animals in their area? Elk are kinda more majestic than whitetails, but I don't envy quartering one and backpacking it out.
These guys I know were straight up militia, and they were talking a good game to themselves about being willing to die to preserve the Constitution for their kids. I almost believe they had in their minds this image of the movie to be made of their heroic sacrifice, complete with a stirring score. Nine tenths of them were derps, and the ones that are my friends discovered this after about four months as members and quit. The thing to become the final straw was when discussions began coming up about grabbing people's food storage in the event of a major disaster happening.
They didn't have the "Veterans of Unpopular Wars" segment with they guy losing his eye to an umbrella in a Mai-Tai in Grenada readily available on youtube so I went with another Abe Simpson quote.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, because my feed is full of college students, im seeing some interesting comments.
One being that it is only white people who have the right to be armed, while the other is comparing how Black Lives Matter protestors are regularly beaton by police for half of what these guys are doing, when I cant find any example of that in which it wasnt violence met with force.
after this year you must be deliberately ignoring any stories that go against your preconceived notions.
so just this last year blacks have had a naked man gunned down, people with toy guns in an open carry state gunned down in seconds, and a sweet lil ol lady gunned down just for opening the door when the cops showed up, they get gunned down when they surrender or if they go along peacefully they get executed or beaten in their cells. Then there's the whole black males receiving the harshest of prison sentences. America has a long way to go to resolve is racism.
when blacks tried what the terrorists in oregon are doing the police responded by dropping a bomb from a helicopter, and they were only occupying their house.
black people who use guns in self-defense have been disproportionately penalized. African Americans in Stand Your Ground states are 354 percent less likely to be justified for killing in self-defense. And studies show that police are more likely to use physical force against black people.
so yes only white people are protected under the 2nd, as soon as any group of black men get them they're labeled as terrorist.
I agree, it was as outrageuos as what the Federal government did at Waco when all those white children and adults were burned alive over a siege resulting from weapons violations.
It seems like they learned some lessons in the past twenty years.
Militia will vary widely from a group who chill at bills place every other weekend, watch sports and do some hunting to a full blown military esque group with training, organisation and capabilities of a small military unit.
Going to be a whole spectrum, not all people in tacticool gear or real semi military units, many, both and many between.
