|
Geostomp posted:They're white and right wing which means that they're afraid that doing anything will make the growing number of other insane conservatives angry. That and these idiots really, really want this to turn into a standoff so they can indulge their fantasies and/or become maytrs. So the terrorist won?
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 03:25 |
|
|
oohhboy posted:So the terrorist won? Did you not see the "mission failed" screen? It's ok, though - we'll try again from the last checkpoint. The trick is to put stickybombs on the helicopter before you start the mission - otherwise you can kill everyone but Ammon Bundy still escapes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
I won't have time to see if they delivered the gummi bears today but I guess if I hear stuff on the news about a "dysentery outbreak" I'll know things went all right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
Jippa posted:Being from the UK the only famous person I could think of from oregon was chael sonnen (there are obviously loads but that was the only one I had heard discussing it). I'm from America and the only one that comes to mind is Chuck Palahniuk. Of course, this sounds like something that could come out of one of his books.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:You punch up, not punch down. Are you loving insane? "punch up not punch down" is a principle you use when determining whether a racy joke is okay, not whether killing someone is okay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Ideally, you maintain order and rule of law in all cases. You do so equally and without malice, bigotry or brutality. If you're a protestor, black, white, liberal or conservative, and you break the law, you should pay the price. Sometimes in doing so, you prove your point, and show that the law is injust and must be changed. Seizing Federal property while armed merits a strong, proportionate reponse. Using terrorist tactics such as human shields escalates matters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
So what would you say is a strong, proportionate response?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:So what would you say is a strong, proportionate response? Can they fill the building with sleeping gas and then just drag the people out afterwards?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
prefect posted:Can they fill the building with sleeping gas and then just drag the people out afterwards? That's not a thing
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
prefect posted:Can they fill the building with sleeping gas and then just drag the people out afterwards? There is no such thing as a safe sleeping gas Talmonis posted:Seizing Federal property while armed merits a strong, proportionate reponse. Using terrorist tactics such as human shields escalates matters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
In this case there are no hostages so it should work just fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
In video games you can use gas grenades or tranquilizer rounds and the enemy just goes "ungh" and falls asleep for a while. In real life you will do nothing, or you will suffocate or kill them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:There is no such thing as a safe sleeping gas How about some type of gay bomb?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
prefect posted:How about some type of gay bomb? done
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
many johnnys posted:In video games you can use gas grenades or tranquilizer rounds and the enemy just goes "ungh" and falls asleep for a while. In real life you will do nothing, or you will suffocate or kill them. ... go on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:In this case there are no hostages so it should work just fine. they haven't done anything worth death yet, even if they are giant assholes
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Tias posted:But why do you still believe it, after your magic words do gently caress-all That's where their cries of "tyranny" come from. You know how we joke sometimes about how all these guys seem to cry tyranny at anything and can't figure out where they're seeing it? It's because their magic words aren't working. But they're convinced that they are real, so clearly the answer is that the government isn't following the laws (constitution) because otherwise they'd have full access to the secret UN-Rothschild-Bilderburg-bank account that was created when they were "berthed" and filled with a million billion dollars and they'd be able to walk up to the White House, go inside and arrest (kill) that traitor Obongo because he can't lay claim to the White House and fj;;asjsfkl jskafj adksfjasd..... Ammon Bundy said something to that effect yesterday. It was along the lines of "The government must follow these strict rules[their interpretation of the constitution], but people are suffering, and can't put money in their savings accounts because the government isn't following these strict rules." Which is a huge  to us, but to them they can't quite make the connection that it isn't the government ignoring the laws, it's that their "laws" aren't real and don't work that way. text editor posted:well this is a hosed up thing I wish didnt exist The republicans literally shut down the anti-terrorist division tasked with tracking and combating right-wing terrorist groups. So yes, they are ignorant about these guys unless they blatantly bring themselves into the limelight like the Bundy's are now. Some work is done on them, but there isn't a cohesive group that tracks all of them, so the FBI/DHS is fighting against these guys with one hand and one leg tied behind their back. prefect posted:Can they fill the building with sleeping gas and then just drag the people out afterwards? "Sleeping gas" isn't an actual thing... There are chemicals that can put a person to sleep with targeted applications (anesthesia) but there isn't a gas you can safely fill a room with and have people just fall asleep with no ill effects. The Russians tried this once with some anesthesia and ended up just killing a bunch of innocent people. Because knocking someone out is hard and you can't predict how people will react to it, and I'm not even talking about being allergic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:In this case there are no hostages so it should work just fine. Well...no. The brought their wives/girlfriends and kids. As much as it'd be cathartic to see these guys actually have a run in with real "warriors", I don't want kids to get killed because daddy decided he wanted to play revolutionary and decided to go with the narrative of a racist neoconfederate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
Crain posted:Well...no. The brought their wives/girlfriends and kids. I just hope the kids end up in good foster homes after all this is done and dusted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
weaponized opiods is exactly how i want to die
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:they haven't done anything worth death yet, even if they are giant assholes Yeah, they deserve huge fines/jail time, but not being killed if it can be helped. If they start shooting when they are being arrested then the matter has changed, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
text editor posted:well this is a hosed up thing I wish didnt exist Well when the feds released a report detailing how the far right was getting more extreme and dangerous the GOP flipped its poo poo and the report was pulled so that said department wouldn't have its funding gutted by Congress, so yeah basically. Maybe Obama actually had it stay up and running and the shutdown was a publicity thing but I'd say that's not likely since someone in the GOP would've gotten a report or wind of it and we'd have had round 2 of the American Taliban crying because they're being watched. Crain posted:Well...no. The brought their wives/girlfriends and kids. If the kids are lucky they'll grow up to be 'only' as hosed up as people like the Duggars. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
The Santilli chat during the off-hours is great. I can't tell who's real and who's trolling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
by the way, their idea that the government can't own land comes from Article 1, section 8:quote:To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And which has, of course, goddamn nothing with whether or not the federal government can create national parks or specify land for controlled public use. It's a positive power given to congress, not a restriction on them
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
No, clearly it says that the gubmint can only own 10 square miles of land, and that's where they have to put all their forts and shipyards 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:So what would you say is a strong, proportionate response? On that first day, I would have set up a small roadblock with the FBI and cooperation from the local Sheriff's department and state police. I'd demand they disperse, and that if they cooperated within a set time, they would be free to leave. Fined later. After they refuse, steal federal vehicles, etc. you expand the cordon. Stop all shipments in of supplies. Arrest anyone smuggling in supplies, and anyone attempting to sneak out. If they come in a mass, order them to stand down. If they threaten violence, read them their rights. If they aim weapons, eliminate them like you would any other hostile, armed threat. Wait out the rest until they run out of supplies and play up their defeated, emaciated and emotionally broken faces on TV. That would have been a strong, proportionate response.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:On that first day, I would have set up a small roadblock with the FBI and cooperation from the local Sheriff's department and state police. I'd demand they disperse, and that if they cooperated within a set time, they would be free to leave. Fined later. This is all well and good, but if they did that we wouldn't have gotten the 'no more dildos please!' video.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:On that first day, I would have set up a small roadblock with the FBI and cooperation from the local Sheriff's department and state police. I'd demand they disperse, and that if they cooperated within a set time, they would be free to leave. Lets just stop right here because this is all that would have happened before a bloodbath ensued. You setup a "small" roadblock and they start a firefight instantly. How about this, revise your idea of how to stop this by first understanding that if the Bundys hear or see a federal agent within a 600 meter dietance they will attempt to kill them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:So if all power above the county level is disbanded, what happens to this enormous juggernaut of a military? Are they assuming they'll just quietly disband and not, for example and I'm totally just thinking out loud because something like this has never happened before, steamroll every paintball playdate militia guarding anything even remotely valuable and set up a military junta by day 2? In this kind of group, there are two ways of thinking about the military: ARE TROOPS who are good ole boys and will of course completely support the militias, or evil brainwashed minions who will of course be defeated by God's chosen people just like in the Bible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:In this kind of group, there are two ways of thinking about the military: ARE TROOPS who are good ole boys and will of course completely support the militias, or evil brainwashed minions who will of course be defeated by God's chosen people just like in the Bible. a lot of them have based everything on their weird interpretation of the constitution, and the constitution pretty explicitly outlines that the feds can have a standing army but they break all these OTHER "laws" so they're illegitimate
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:This is all well and good, but if they did that we wouldn't have gotten the 'no more dildos please!' video. Freedom isn't free 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Lets just stop right here because this is all that would have happened before a bloodbath ensued. You setup a "small" roadblock and they start a firefight instantly. That bloodbath would have been entirely on them. That's really all that matters when it comes to whether or not to engage them. If a raid botches, you have Waco or Ruby Ridge. Don't raid them. If they attack law enforcement, they get put down on live TV as the aggressive terrorists they are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Lets just stop right here because this is all that would have happened before a bloodbath ensued. You setup a "small" roadblock and they start a firefight instantly. Law enforcement officers are paid to put themselves at risk in order to protect others.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Yeah if putting up a roadblock is all it takes in order for these guys to become violent with lethal intent towards agents of the state we are just putting this off since if you send a cop to their house in six months to arrest them once everything has settled down I don't see why they wouldn't be just as likely to shoot that guy. The argument that "they will turn to violence" is pretty much going to be applicable no matter what you do so at a certain point you either need to let them do whatever they want forever or try something that has a small risk of them retaliating.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:Law enforcement officers are paid to put themselves at risk in order to protect others. yes, but they're allowed to consider the risk/reward ratio. i'd be pretty upset if i was told to risk my life for a bird sanctuary
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:yes, but they're allowed to consider the risk/reward ratio. i'd be pretty upset if i was told to risk my life for a bird sanctuary You're also not a cop with a sense of duty to uphold the law. Part of which is not letting armed men take what they want in flagrant abuse of it. This sort of thing is what all those shiny new toys they received from the Military are for. Full body armor, Sarcoghagus shields, APC's, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:yes, but they're allowed to consider the risk/reward ratio. i'd be pretty upset if i was told to risk my life for a bird sanctuary Endangered birds are cooler than gun-toting fat idiots imo
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:How about this, revise your idea of how to stop this by first understanding that if the Bundys hear or see a federal agent within a 600 meter dietance they will attempt to kill them. Is that right? My impression was that they didn't recognise the authority of federal officers, and, as a result, would refuse to comply with any instructions and would defend selves if drawn upon. But they don't actually want to go out and kill people, feds or not. They want a standoff. I mean, they were hoping for roadblocks and sieges, right? Can't really see any other reason for their being in an off-season wildlife sanctuary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Fun from the stream chat:          
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 03:25 |
|
|
i have no idea which of those are trolls i really like "government out of my social security, though."
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 17:11
|
|