|
CommieGIR posted:Well, no, because they probably won't let cattle graze, mining companies work, and lumber companies come in. I saw one of the interviews and most of the guys there literally don't even know Native Americans exist.
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 01:27 |
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Of course the have the ability to do so, but they didn't and they haven't, and because of their hands off approach, these dummies are now trying to instigate a new confrontation elsewhere, and also two cops were murdered because the feds let the situation grow massively toxic through the media. You're arguing a counterfactual without evidence. The federal government has every reason to believe that the situation would be made much, much worse, and that the escalation by militia imitators would be more severe, if they used force. They believe this would happen because it has happened in the past. Waco and Ruby Ridge motivate this population far more than the current incoherent mess does. The FBI would probably react in the exact same way to Muslim ISIS sympathizers if they were occupying a similarly remote location with a similarly limited likelihood of killing people if unprovoked. The main reason the feds might use force sooner would be to prevent right wing militias from separately attacking them! Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Jan 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You're arguing a counterfactual without evidence. The federal government has every reason to believe that the situation would be made much, much worse, and that the escalation by militia imitators would be more severe, if they used force. They know this would happen because it has happened in the past. Waco and Ruby Ridge motivate this population far more than the current incoherent mess does. The FBI would probably react in the exact same way to Muslim ISIS sympathizers if they were occupying a similarly remote location with a similarly limited likelihood of killing people if unprovoked. The main reason the feds might use force sooner would be to prevent right wing militias from separately attacking them! Is there something other than OKC that I am missing? Because from my understanding OKC killed the collective boner of militias to play rebel. It's one thing to talk poo poo, it's another when a few of your own murder hundreds of innocent people in front of the whole country. Waco and Ruby Ridge pissed a lot of people off, but it also taught them a valuable lesson (that they probably shouldn't be directly starting poo poo with the feds because it probably won't end well.) The OKC bombing taught them that becoming terrorists was also a quick way to lose the only allies they could probably hope to gain in their anti-government crusade. The ongoing saga of the Bundy's is doing a lot to erase the lessons of the past.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
The Oklahoma City bombing's deterrent effect was limited, and generally forgotten when Obama was elected. Participants generally view McVeigh as nonrepresentative of their greivances.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:This is supposedly a list of wants from the OR militia wannabes. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:This is supposedly a list of wants from the OR militia wannabes. Cowboy Killers, Marb Lights, Coppenhagen chew.... whelp that sounds awfully redneck to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
My favorite is halfway down the first column:quote:Hay
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
BaurusJA posted:Cowboy Killers Wish they'd send them a box of cow killers instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:Wish they'd send them a box of cow killers instead. I'd settle for just killing them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The Oklahoma City bombing's deterrent effect was limited, and generally forgotten when Obama was elected. Participants generally view McVeigh as nonrepresentative of their greivances. I should clarify that I am not talking about militia recruitment when I bring up the lessons of OKC. I am talking about tactics. While it is reasonable to say OKC would never have happened without Ruby Ridge or Waco, it is even more reasonable to state that OKC's aftermath has prevented any similar tactics from being deployed since. There is a reason militias aren't bombing things and conducting mass shootings. But what is happening, thanks to the Bundy's is the allowance of a thawing in this kind of radical thinking and behavior. It used to be that militias had good reason to fear conducting any kind of open warfare with the feds or anyone else, but if the new perception of the feds is that they will not likely respond aggressively, it is going to result in a situation as bad or worse than any of the other three situations we keep bringing up over and over again. If this had been squashed at the ranch, this wouldn't be happening, and anything that happens going forward is going to be a direct result of this new passive strategy. Here's my take. People are going to be hurt either way. The question is whether you want it to be isolated to the criminals who are arming themselves and challenging the government via their crimes and the LEO's tasked with stopping them, or if you want it to spread into another catastrophe where a bunch of innocent people get hurt or killed because crazy militia men feel emboldened. It's already gone too far and any action taken at this point is going to get innocent people hurt now imo, but we really should be looking to prevent this from getting any bigger than it is. It was out of hand when they were on that ranch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:No one would be saying that we shouldn't be putting LEO lives in danger to fight terrorists. The fact that so many people are insisting these guys are totally harmless is what is making some other people angry. They are only being considered harmless and laughable because they are white good ol' boys. The reporting and reactions to this situation would be massively different if these dudes were different looking, and that is infuriating, because no one would be questioning it then. please stop and consider that they're being considered harmless because they're visibly and obviously mentally deficient and incapable of a protest, and not because of the tendency of internet liberals to rabidly hate white rural people
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:please stop and consider that they're being considered harmless because they're visibly and obviously mentally deficient and incapable of a protest, and not because of the tendency of internet liberals to rabidly hate white rural people no
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
do their kids all have names like "kane" bundy "reaper" bundy
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Is there something other than OKC that I am missing? Because from my understanding OKC killed the collective boner of militias to play rebel. It's one thing to talk poo poo, it's another when a few of your own murder hundreds of innocent people in front of the whole country. Waco and Ruby Ridge pissed a lot of people off, but it also taught them a valuable lesson (that they probably shouldn't be directly starting poo poo with the feds because it probably won't end well.) The OKC bombing taught them that becoming terrorists was also a quick way to lose the only allies they could probably hope to gain in their anti-government crusade. A major component of the OKC bombing is that a lot of people finally learned how to make No True Scotsman arguments. It's why far right nonsense can be hard to get people out of once they get in. You'll get a lot of "not one of ours" or "well a real member of *movement* would never do that!" Granted a lot of this militia bullshit isn't guys that actually want to overthrow the government but dudes that just want to feel tough and remind each other of how patriotic they are because they'd totally have grabbed a musket and fought with Washington.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Honestly, I have to call a little bit of bullshit on the whole OKC thing. Waco and Ruby Ridge were bad and the feds shouldn't do that. Did they influence McVeigh? Yes. Did they end up being his primary reason for doing what he did? Seems that way. But Waco and Ruby Ridge did not force McVeigh to go blow up a building full of people and a daycare full of kids in the middle of a city. He did that, and while it's important to be mindful of his motives and what may have led to him being radicalized, those two events were not the only things that radicalized him or led him down the path to becoming a homegrown terrorist, and some posts in this thread (mostly further back, not really this page) are all but stating that McVeigh just had to go blow up that building because the Feds were so mean to those other guys. Waco and Ruby Ridge were awful events that everyone should try not to repeat. OKC bombing was a terrorist attack by a terrorist who used Waco and Ruby Ridge as his reason for committing mass murder on people who were not involved in those events in any way other than being employed by the Federal Government. Furthermore, if you (general you) are so intimidated by the possibility of another horrific terrorist attack that you refuse to enforce the law when it comes to a specific group of people, or are afraid of taking actions to limit the possibility of violence and death for everyone involved, militants included, then congratulations, McVeigh won. That's the point of terrorist attacks. The only 'lesson' this and the previous Bundy standoff are teaching is that the feds will back down if you have enough guns and are willing to be terrorists to get your way (and have a lot of politicians and pundits that will yell for you, that's a bonus).
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:There are lots of types of federally owned land. National Parks, National Forests, National Refuges and National Monuments make up a huge amount of fed land and usually charge entry fees and camping fees, with a lot of it available for free as well. What about federal grazing land? According to the BLM website, it's $1.35 per animal per month (which sounds like a pretty loving sweet deal to me)? Does this mean if you have say, an area of land, like a 100 sq. acres, multiple people who pay the fee can all put their animals in that area? Or does the BLM provide certain areas of land only to certain ranchers?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:please stop and consider that they're being considered harmless because they're visibly and obviously mentally deficient and incapable of a protest, and not because of the tendency of internet liberals to rabidly hate white rural people even though I somewhat agree with you, i wonder if you actually have real experience with "white rural people"
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:even though I somewhat agree with you, i wonder if you actually have real experience with "white rural people" of course not, i am an urban hipster latte liberal, which is why i am wrong all the time
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
makes sense
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:What about federal grazing land? According to the BLM website, it's $1.35 per animal per month (which sounds like a pretty loving sweet deal to me)? Does this mean if you have say, an area of land, like a 100 sq. acres, multiple people who pay the fee can all put their animals in that area? Or does the BLM provide certain areas of land only to certain ranchers?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
kartikeya posted:Furthermore, if you (general you) are so intimidated by the possibility of another horrific terrorist attack that you refuse to enforce the law when it comes to a specific group of people, or are afraid of taking actions to limit the possibility of violence and death for everyone involved, militants included, then congratulations, McVeigh won. That's the point of terrorist attacks. The only 'lesson' this and the previous Bundy standoff are teaching is that the feds will back down if you have enough guns and are willing to be terrorists to get your way (and have a lot of politicians and pundits that will yell for you, that's a bonus). That's not the lesson, that's not what the feds are doing, that's not what militia are taking from this. The feds are behaving this way specifically because the only way this turns into horrific bloodshed is if they rush in and try to breach the compound. That's also not how terrorism works. Terrorist attacks are effective when they elicit a response that makes the instigator sympathetic to a target audience and furthers their political goals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
I think they should ignore them until they give up. Then prosecute each of them and then quietly arrest them individually at home or work. They shouldn't be allowed to advance their narrative. But their narrative would be advanced by a showdown or a stand off. I don't think the deserve that attention. It's what they want to happen. They should be dealt with boringly. No confrontation that fits their story. I think this shits on their goals in the most effective way. When people talk about what they did in the future it should go like this: Yeah they took small building in the wild life refuge. Not much happened. No, `they arrested the guys six months later, I think they are still in prison.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:please stop and consider that they're being considered harmless because they're visibly and obviously mentally deficient and incapable of a protest, and not because of the tendency of internet liberals to rabidly hate white rural people As a rural white person I rabidly hate you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I think they should ignore them until they give up. Then prosecute each of them and then quietly arrest them individually at home or work. This is great until you apply this thinking to the first Bundy ranch stand off. What happens when, before they are arrested (because slow and steady wins the race), they break the law again somewhere else? Hold back and wait another 6 months?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:This is great until you apply this thinking to the first Bundy ranch stand off. What happens when, before they are arrested (because slow and steady wins the race), they break the law again somewhere else? Hold back and wait another 6 months? yeah i guess if you cherry pick the worst possible example and interpret that as the precedent moving fowards, ignoring all other militia standoffs, things DO look pretty dire
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:yeah i guess if you cherry pick the worst possible example and interpret that as the precedent moving fowards, ignoring all other militia standoffs, things DO look pretty dire Is it really cherry picking if its an example that involves the same people doing essentially the same thing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:This is great until you apply this thinking to the first Bundy ranch stand off. What happens when, before they are arrested (because slow and steady wins the race), they break the law again somewhere else? Hold back and wait another 6 months? They didn't do anything after the first stand off. Which I think was a mistake. Methodical is the word. The follow up has to be methodical and competent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:This is great until you apply this thinking to the first Bundy ranch stand off. What happens when, before they are arrested (because slow and steady wins the race), they break the law again somewhere else? Hold back and wait another 6 months? bango skank posted:Is it really cherry picking if its an example that involves the same people doing essentially the same thing? BrandorKP posted:They didn't do anything after the first stand off. Which I think was a mistake. Methodical is the word. The follow up has to be methodical and competent. We won't know what DoJ is doing about the Bundys until they're charged- probably until they're arrested. Just because the FBI hasn't issued a press release about their investigation doesn't mean it isn't happening.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:They didn't do anything after the first stand off. Which I think was a mistake. Methodical is the word. The follow up has to be methodical and competent. And also an actual followup instead of just handwringing about possibly giving the armed terrorists a tummyache.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I think they should ignore them until they give up. Then prosecute each of them and then quietly arrest them individually at home or work. How is their narrative not advanced when they declare themselves the victor over the federal government?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That's also not how terrorism works. Terrorist attacks are effective when they elicit a response that makes the instigator sympathetic to a target audience and furthers their political goals. No? The goal of terrorism is to control your enemies with fear. I don't know where you got your crazy definition from.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
Booourns posted:So I have to wonder, if a group of Afghani Muslim immigrants did what the Bundys are doing right now, would people be saying we can't do anything about it because it might spark another 9/11? Depends on whether they did it in the middle of downtown in a major city, or on federal land in the middle of nowhere. kartikeya posted:The only 'lesson' this and the previous Bundy standoff are teaching is that the feds will back down if you have enough guns and are willing to be terrorists to get your way (and have a lot of politicians and pundits that will yell for you, that's a bonus). "Not getting your poo poo wrecked in a brutal raid" is not the same as "getting your way". Cliven's little standoff didn't make his legal troubles go away, and although I can't believe I have to say this, neither the government nor anyone else will honor Ammon's self-declared expropriation of the land. Also, the FBI busts anti-government militias all the time. We just don't usually hear about it because they bust real militia groups planning real attacks, not collections of random idiots spontaneously gathering to engage in civil disobedience and talk tough to the cameras. ToastyPotato posted:This is great until you apply this thinking to the first Bundy ranch stand off. What happens when, before they are arrested (because slow and steady wins the race), they break the law again somewhere else? Hold back and wait another 6 months? Then they get charged for both things? It isn't rocket science. It's not like a few months in prison is some super huge deterrent that'll stop them from ever making trouble ever again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
He says it's my land now but he won't let me on it to shuffle around with an assault rifle and mean mug them like IS MY GOD-GIVEN RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN Goddamn Marxist fascists
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
bango skank posted:Is it really cherry picking if its an example that involves the same people doing essentially the same thing? yeah when you focus on one example and ignore others that's more or less the definition of cherry picking
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Depends on whether they did it in the middle of downtown in a major city, or on federal land in the middle of nowhere. And 'cordon them off so they can't move freely to resupply/reinforce/get wives and kids in to use as bullet shields then wait them out' is not the same as 'brutal raid'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
I'm still amused at the irony that the least-prepped preppers in history took over a site whose name literally translates as 'misfortune.'
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 08:20
|
|
|
Albino Squirrel posted:I'm still amused at the irony that the least-prepped preppers in history took over a site whose name literally translates as 'misfortune.' To be fair, prepping is a waste of time if you can just go get pizzas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 08:29
|
|
|
Jet Jaguar posted:I don't see any of these guys carrying beef jerky or trail mix... Well, they're white Christians, so it's okay! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:No? The goal of terrorism is to control your enemies with fear. I don't know where you got your crazy definition from. Then you haven't been paying attention. kartikeya posted:And 'cordon them off so they can't move freely to resupply/reinforce/get wives and kids in to use as bullet shields then wait them out' is not the same as 'brutal raid'. Because cordoning them off is what they want. This has been explained several times now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 10:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 01:27 |
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:This is supposedly a list of wants from the OR militia wannabes. Jet Jaguar posted:I don't see any of these guys carrying beef jerky or trail mix... You notice in the pictures that they're all wearing pretty light pants and cotton hooded sweatshirts. That's hilariously inappropriate for the winter out there. They must be freezing their asses off. Makes sense that all the top items on their list are cold-weather related. If you're standing in that cold all day you want a major winter coat and about 4k calories a day if you're being at all active.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 10:49
|
|