|
Intel&Sebastian posted:I'm genuinely curious why the LV/Gadsen shooters are so far out of bounds its safe to dismiss someone over it. The issue with the LV shooters was that they spent like almost zero time in the media spotlight, partially because the right wing wanted to forget about that incident as quickly as possible because it discredited those that they have tentatively supported and also because it was an event that they linked to mental health issues (like most killing sprees) instead of the patriot movement like it should have been. Basically, it wasn't as big of an event like the OK City Bombing so it was easy for the right to simply ignore it for 15 minutes until the next event happened.
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:I'm genuinely curious why the LV/Gadsen shooters are so far out of bounds its safe to dismiss someone over it. Because the LV shooters were a pair of lone wolf terrorists. I am talking about the multiple times various militias have issued a "call to arms" and actually deployed themselves before eventually heading home because nothing was going to happen and they got tired of sitting in the middle of nowhere with their thumb up their rear end. These incidents were generally ignored by the media and completely ignored by the FBI, thus ending other potential standoffs by doing nothing. The LV shooters were not answering a militia call to arms to join a standoff, they acted on their own spontaneously. It is a completely different situation and conflating the two is a bad faith argument. Edit: Also important is that the Bundy Ranch (which served some roke in inspiring the LV shooters)was not ignored, there was a clear line of heavily armed federal agents the entire time. It is again, a different situation. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Yeah, the LV shooters made their own call to arms that the rest of the militia types were to chickenshit to answer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:There's logic, but it's not the kind of logic that you or I would know. It's entirely self-serving and helps further their narrative, as actually behaving rationally (as we would know it) would force them to admit that their entire world view is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Prester John posted:Because the LV shooters were a pair of lone wolf terrorists. I am talking about the multiple times various militias have issued a "call to arms" and actually deployed themselves before eventually heading home because nothing was going to happen and they got tired of sitting in the middle of nowhere with their thumb up their rear end. These incidents were generally ignored by the media and completely ignored by the FBI, thus ending other potential standoffs by doing nothing. Yeah this is where I would want to point you to Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. One could argue that they weren't answering a militia call to arms but where instead acting on their own spontaneously in retaliation to what they saw was government overreach in the name of militia movements. The only really difference IMO between the LV shooters and McVeigh/Nichols was body count.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
MariusLecter posted:Yeah, the LV shooters made their own call to arms that the rest of the militia types were to chickenshit to answer. That's something I think is being overlooked here. The president is black. Gay marriage is legal. This is generally a tolerant society and these kooks are on the margins. We've won. Except for the rare psychopath, these people are all hat and no cattle and if they were going to kick off RAHOWA they would have done it by now. Round them up, they're cowards. They worship strength so let's give them something to worship.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Yeah this is where I would want to point you to Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. One could argue that they weren't answering a militia call to arms but where instead acting on their own spontaneously in retaliation to what they saw was government overreach in the name of militia movements. And they were both reacting to Ruby Ridge/Waco which were again, situations that could have been resolved without a giant confrontation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That's something I think is being overlooked here. The president is black. Gay marriage is legal. This is generally a tolerant society and these kooks are on the margins. We've won. Except for the rare psychopath, these people are all hat and no cattle and if they were going to kick off RAHOWA they would have done it by now. Round them up, they're cowards. They worship strength so let's give them something to worship. In a country of 330 million people there can be a sufficient number of "rare" psychopaths to create a violent movement. Also, individually they are cowards, but together they are quite capable of going down in a blaze of glory thanks to the magic of groupthink. If you were correct then the cowards at Waco would have all surrendered rather than get into a hopeless shoot-out/siege with the feds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
I dont have any use or respect for a system of categorization that's so specific and nuanced that it somehow manages to turn two people with a history of militia rhetoric who walked off the Bundy Ranch and pulled off a tea party themed killing spree into "lone wolf terrorists". Especially retroactively. Whether or not they had an oathkeepers membership card and an inclination to play army man doesnt matter as much to me as the actual rhetoric and attitudes they expressed, which only ever became outliers to the militia/standoff set when they killed someone. Not a very useful line to draw. Intel&Sebastian fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:I dont have any use or respect for a system of categorization that's so specific and nuanced that it somehow manages to turn two people with a history of militia rhetoric who walked off the Bundy Ranch and pulled off a tea party themed killing spree into "lone wolf terrorists". Especially retroactively. Not to mention the same system that declares the San Bernadino shooting a plot orchestrated on the other side of the world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Prester John posted:In a country of 330 million people there can be a sufficient number of "rare" psychopaths to create a violent movement. Also, individually they are cowards, but together they are quite capable of going down in a blaze of glory thanks to the magic of groupthink. If you were correct then the cowards at Waco would have all surrendered rather than get into a hopeless shoot-out/siege with the feds. Branch Davidian indoctrination was more unified and "in the moment" than any of this. The ranchers will remain cowards even as their compatriots are taking bullets all around them. What's your end game for all this anyway? You seem to be saying "they're too strong to fight, so let them gain in strength."
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:I dont have any use or respect for a system of categorization that's so specific and nuanced that it somehow manages to turn two people with a history of militia rhetoric who walked off the Bundy Ranch and pulled off a tea party themed killing spree into "lone wolf terrorists". Especially retroactively. You are uncomfortable with distinguishing between people who want to kill and people who have claimed that they will kill under certain circumstances? I mean, we can say "there are very dangerous people who are attracted to and encouraged by the sov cit movement" and "not all sov cits are the same" and not get ourselves all tangled up in the crazy wordplay, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:I dont have any use or respect for a system of categorization that's so specific and nuanced that it somehow manages to turn two people with a history of militia rhetoric who walked off the Bundy Ranch and pulled off a tea party themed killing spree into "lone wolf terrorists". Especially retroactively. I am talking specifically about other militia standoffs that ended because no one but the militia showed up and the press generally ignored them. These had the potential to become full fledged standoffs just like we have had elsewhere. I am using that example to argue that ignoring these things as much as possible is the best way to reduce the amount of violence that will occur. I am not arguing that it will prevent all violence altogether. That said, no one remembers the fizzled attempts to initiate a standoff with the Feds because they ended quitely. No one later went in to commit an act of terror over non-events. With Waco/Ruby Ridge we had standoffs that ended in violence and it is widely acknowledged that there were far better, non-aggressive (or reduced aggression) methods to have resolved the situation. With Eaco/Bundy Ranch/Ruby my Ridge you all had situations where the Fed was present and visible, and those situations resulted in further attacks. With the fizzled militia attempts to initiate a standoff, you did not have further attacks inspired. I'm not saying there is a way to prevent future violence, there isn't. What I am saying is that non-confrontation until it is absolutely unavoidable us the best path to reduce the amount of violence that this event will inevitably inspire. Look at it this way, if you go charging in and mow the seditionists down, then Malheur will become holy ground soaked in the blood of Patriots and the residents of Burns will be blamed for not supporting the militia enough. Burns would become a very popular destination for right wingers looking to go on shooting rampages and there would be random mass shootings every so often for a decade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Prester John posted:Hell, if Trump loses the general election it is entirely conceivable that he will dispute the election results and openly incite his supporters to violence. It is my position that with that particular Sword of Damoclese hanging over us, it is best to let this movement discredit itself as much as humanely possible for the time being. Think of it as blessing off a reservoir because you know the dam is about tour burst. We can't prevent the dam from bursting, but we can reduce the amount of flooding that will inevitably occur. Donald Trump isn't going to start a literal CWII. Jesus Christ. Edit: Like how would he? Half the Republican Party is against him, ignoring that no Dem would pull the lever for Donald on election day. BadOptics fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Branch Davidian indoctrination was more unified and "in the moment" than any of this. The ranchers will remain cowards even as their compatriots are taking bullets all around them. My endgame is this. (Assuming I was incharge od thr FBI response, which i am not.) Delay confrontation as long as possible, in the meantime gather as much Intel as possible. Bundy is running around the country meeting with other radicals, so let him. Follow him with a drone and then start surveillance on anyone sympathetic to his cause that he meets with. Start surveilance onon as many of the people who come and go at the refuge as possible. Eventually the militia will cross a line and public other ry will force the FBI to act. When it dies the strike should be as swift and merciless as possible, a demonstration of the ultimate futility of the militia's goal of overthrowing the government. This will trigger reprisals, but it will trigger fewer reprisals than would otherwise occur, and you might even stop a reprisal because you now have Intel on a bunch of the people most likely to be involved in a reprisal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
BadOptics posted:Donald Trump isn't going to start a literal CWII. Jesus Christ. You are correct, he isn't going to start an actual 2nd Civil War. He isn't going to be President either, but that isn't stopping him from trying. Do you really think that an open Fascist (that wants to deport 11 million people) riding a wave of populist outrage won't consider inciting violence in order to stay relevant? Trump and his followers will go into election night expecting a massive victory. When they are Instead crushed, they will instantly suspect the election was rigged. Further, if Trump simply concedes, then his political relevance is ended, his strong man persona forever shattered, and all the attention and relevance he has been wallowing in will suddenly be gone forever. I'm not saying Trump will definitely incite violence if he loses the general, but I am saying that Trump is psychologically completely capable of doing so and will have a powerful motivation to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Arguably the whole miltia thing took off in the 90's under Clinton because from Reagan on the GOP has an attitude of 'only we are the rightful party to be president'. If Trump goes all the way to the general and loses I could see him organizing a goldshirt militia. Would it be successful? I don't want to think about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
What line do you imagine they will cross that will force this "public outcry"? Shooting up an abortion clinic? Bombing a federal building? Killing cops? Killing ATF agents? Trying to burn firefighters to death? Flying a plane into an IRS building?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
BadOptics posted:Edit: Like how would he? Half the Republican Party is against him, ignoring that no Dem would pull the lever for Donald on election day. If Trump wins the nomination the base will fall in line behind him and unless he eats a baby on live television so will the GOP establishment. The donor class is already groupthinking themselves into believing that a Trump Presidency wouldn't be so bad. (Or at least it wouldn't be as bad as a Cruz Presidency according to their thinking.) Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:What line do you imagine they will cross that will force this "public outcry"? Shooting up an abortion clinic? Bombing a federal building? Killing cops? Killing ATF agents? Trying to burn firefighters to death? Flying a plane into an IRS building? I don't know, and I am speaking of crossing a line in this specific situation, not crossing the line that forces the American public to collectively admit that we have a widespread problem with right wing/Christian terrorism. (Although both might happen as a result of this situation, only time will tell.) Most likely the militia (or someone they inspire) will try to go enforce a ruling that their Kangaroo court issues and that will be the final straw. Either that or the militia starts seizing more territory. Hopefully whatever finally forces the FBI to act doesn't involve any innocents being harmed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Perfectly Safe posted:You are uncomfortable with distinguishing between people who want to kill and people who have claimed that they will kill under certain circumstances? To PJ: thanks, I understand the discussion was compartmentalized in the specific militia engagement chat, but I'm not as hip on that one. I simply needed to know wtf was up with dismissing them so hard and it wasn't for the reasons I thought. To PS: on the first, I wouldn't say I'm uncomfortable with it, but I'm very very wary of taking the confrantation-fascinated people who say "this is for defense only!" at their word in anything more than the technical legal sense. That thinking, imo, is either 1) toddler level trolling behavior 2) someone smart enough and provacative enough to know that in America you can wave a gun around demanding things if you couch it a specific way, and do so or 3) a level headed person doing something so nationally important they know they need to threaten or kill LEO's with a gun to accomplish it and is willing to face those consequences. I'll work back from there... 1) ammon seems pretty convinced they'll face no consequences, or at least was convinced. He wants it as part of his demands now. I don't think he's level headed. There was no clear plan, their demands are ballooning and were alreadt unrealistic. Everyone there cares more about their media face and sovcit bullshit than any actual ranching. 2) Ammon is probably here, he's on a misguided crusade and knows he'll get no traction without attention, and he gets no attention without guns, and no sympathy if he says they have guns because they plan to use them. Whether or not he actually wants the shootout, I couldn't tell you. I think he desperately wants one that's a PR golden goose. Like the fbi firing on the building, getting some return fire, not killing anyone and then the nation rising up and telling the fbi you just Waco'd again and to leave the poor Bundy's alone. 3) people like pete are just trolls who have trouble concealing their bloodlust. They try to stick with Ammon's version of the "neener neener defense only, can't touch meeeee" bullshit because they know its useful and a nice way to floss all over America with their bullshit, but they're never more than a few minutes away from dropping into a description of their incredibly detailed, poorly justified, fantastical murder fanfiction. Every single time I see a new bundy crew quote I feel like they inch closer to the troll version. On the second: yeah that'd be fine. I didn't mean to blow up that discussion but I wasn't about to let the LV shooters just get whitewashed away in a general conversation, which probably wasn't happening anyway. Intel&Sebastian fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Just build a wall around it and invoice them for the cost. We should be making them build the wall
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:To PJ: thanks, I understand the discussion was compartmentalized in the specific militia engagement chat, but I'm not as hip on that one. I simply needed to know wtf was up with dismissing them so hard and it wasn't for the reasons I thought. Firstly you are very welcone, I am happy to try an elaborate on any point I can make. That said, you are way over thinking how the militia perceives the situation. They are not thinking, they are simply acting in accordance with their Narrative. There is no longer term strategic thought such as you would recognize it. They are doing the Lords work and that is all they need. They don't concern themselves with a plan of action that involves a strategy for winning, they are only concerned with getting their big dight. Win or lose doesn't matter as long as they get a big fight. This is about acting out on rage and despair. They are unable to contemplate living in the modern world and for many of them glorious death in the name of a righteous cause is preferable to living in what they perceive as an insane dystopia. On top of that, many believe that if they do die, they will be rembeted and honored forever as the 1st heroes of the 2nd American Revolution. They see themselves as modern George Washington's and think that schoolchildren will be memorizing their names 100 years from now. Whatever Ammon was at the start of this, he is a narcissist high on his own supply now. He is a cult leader with a band of heavily armed loyalists surrounding him. There isn't any more plan to actually winning in a strategic sense than there was at Waco.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Oh hey Prester John, welcome back, glad to see you again.Prester John posted:I don't know, and I am speaking of crossing a line in this specific situation, not crossing the line that forces the American public to collectively admit that we have a widespread problem with right wing/Christian terrorism. (Although both might happen as a result of this situation, only time will tell.) SedanChair posted:What line do you imagine they will cross that will force this "public outcry"? Shooting up an abortion clinic? Bombing a federal building? Killing cops? Killing ATF agents? Trying to burn firefighters to death? Flying a plane into an IRS building? Prester John posted:They don't concern themselves with a plan of action that involves a strategy for winning, they are only concerned with getting their big dight. Win or lose doesn't matter as long as they get a big fight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Prester John posted:You are correct, he isn't going to start an actual 2nd Civil War. He isn't going to be President either, but that isn't stopping him from trying. You're assuming that Trump is drinking his own kool aid. He's most likely at least something of a narcissist given how he's handled himself in the past. But I think at the heart of how he carries himself he's a ruthless opportunist who knows how to exploit loopholes and biases for his own benefit. I mean, look at how his campaign got started. He knows what to say to get people listening to him. Hell, his entire campaign began, succeeded, and has continually received an upsurge in notoriety (and popularity among the types he's courting) by carefully targeting, exaggerating, and exploiting the political tactics state and national level Republicans have been using for decades now. Except he timed it so that he could take advantage of a rising number of people who don't want their candidate talking out of the side of their mouth about screwing with immigrants, minorities, or whatever hosed up opinion they have. Any action he takes should he fail or think he's going to fail to get elected will be an utterly cynical maneuver. Not an idealistic one. And if he's half as smart as he thinks he is he has to realize that inciting a bunch of insane rednecks to violence is going to slaughter him in the general election. Archonex fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
kartikeya posted:Um. Sorry, but from everything I've been reading, and it's been an embarrassing amount, while there are militants in town that have never been a part of the main group, and there are apparently some internal power politics going on, the guys at Malheur can and do leave the refuge daily, occasionally to take cross-country trips (there was one just recently to Utah). A number of them aren't even staying the night there, they're staying in Burns in motels. Santilli is one of these. Plus, it seems like Blaine Cooper, aka 'I kidnapped my kids from CPS/before CPS could get them' is now back at the refuge too, possibly with his girls (I saw an article that hinted at this, but they were being coy about who the parents were, so it's unclear. That or the girls are with their mom who is hopefully NOT at Malheur). That's not what I was saying. There are other people not affiliated with the occupants that are also always in town. Many of them are less stable than the people at the compound. Action by the feds, including attempts to blockade the compound (which, again, isn't particularly feasible) means these people start shooting others or taking hostages. mugrim posted:I'm not talking a perimeter in the sense of "There's no way you can get past" but rather "If you try and get past us we have a reasonable chance of catching and arresting you", and considering that big rear end river it seems entirely doable, especially if their only alternative is to offroad. Likewise, without blockading roads you have them interacting with the postal service, you have people coming up for day trips, etc. Yes the government will be vilified, no there does not have to be violence-at least not unpredictable amounts of death. The amount of vilification, the number of people drawn in, and the number of people who die, depends on how much the government feeds the militia movement the imagery it needs to attract followers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
The Hammonds are trying the sovereign citizen angle now, apparently https://twitter.com/HGTomato/status/691727203583836160 Bonus crazy: https://twitter.com/jjmacnab/status/691745880097951744
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Oh hey Prester John, welcome back, glad to see you again. Thanks for the welcome fade5, it is good to see you too <3. To answer your question, I don't think there is any "right" moment. Only the American public will decide when it has had enough, and I don't know when we will hit that point. I understand how Narrativists work well enough to predict their actions with a pretty good accuracy, however non-Narrativists are not operating on a simplistic enough set of internal ideas to be predicted as easily. (At least not by me, perhaps someone else can make that call). So I don't know what it will take, because there are many things we would also have to admit to at the same time. Things like "maybe civilians shouldn't own assault rifles". To say nothing of the gigantic argument about what the confines of free speech should be, since this entire situation is the direct consequence of a political party lying to its base for over half a century. So I don't really have a good guess as to when the right wing will get crazy enough for us to collectively overcome our normalcy bias. I suspect that it will happen within the next year and a half or so, because as crazy as the Primaries have been, they are but an appetizer for the buffet of insanity that will be the general election. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Archonex posted:You're assuming that Trump is drinking his own kool aid. He's most likely at least something of a narcissist given how he's handled himself in the past. But I think at the heart of how he carries himself he's a ruthless opportunist who knows how to exploit loopholes and biases for his own benefit. Trump is a very opportunistic narcissist that drank his own kool-aid decades ago. Now he has found the biggest cup of the sweetest kool-aid he has ever tasted, and he will not want that to stop, ever. He is an addict on a binge, and his drug is the attention he is getting. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
As a Millennial I posted:The Hammonds are trying the sovereign citizen angle now, apparently So let's say 40 more loving days go by without this whole thing being shut down: What do y'all expect the response to be from the crazies? Forcibly march on the prison the Hammonds are being held? Trying to sue the government (again)? Does anyone have any news pieces/info on what these guys do when their time frames run out? I've only ever seen Sov Cit gambits played out in court settings and in isolated situations where the one, scrawny, dumbass get's his rear end thrown in jail for contempt of court or tazed for trying this thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
fade5 posted:I really do continue to be amazed that we're playing airstrike whack-a-mole in the Middle East with assholes who share this exact same worldview. It's a funny world 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
As a Millennial I posted:The Hammonds are trying the sovereign citizen angle now, apparently  Class C felonies are up to 5 years in prison and up to $125,000 fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
From the Bundy vox link: "And, the federal government simply needs to adhere to the constitution of the United States. Adhere to the rules and Article 1.817 and comply." Someone help me out; what is article 1.817?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
climboutonalimb posted:From the Bundy vox link: "And, the federal government simply needs to adhere to the constitution of the United States. Adhere to the rules and Article 1.817 and comply." I think it's meant to be Article 1, Section 8, subsection 17: 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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings" The particular brand of legal nonsense Bundy adheres to dictates that this is the only clause that lets the federal government own land. I hadn't thought this was what they cite to for this particular misinterpretation, because even this part of the constitution on its own in isolation gives congress broader land control powers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
size1one posted:Class C felonies are up to 5 years in prison and up to $125,000 fine. Doesn't apply to bundy
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
climboutonalimb posted:From the Bundy vox link: "And, the federal government simply needs to adhere to the constitution of the United States. Adhere to the rules and Article 1.817 and comply." Discendo Vox posted:
Yeah this is what it is. Basically they misinterpret the special zone that the national capitol exists in (D.C., since it is not part of any state, get's a special situation by pure nature of having to contain the federal government.) as meaning the Federal government can only own 10 square miles of land. Instead of the reality of the wording which is that the national capitol can only be 10 square miles big. Since at the time of it's creation it had to be situated inside of one of the already existing states. The 10 sq. miles was a compromise that the affected states agreed upon (5 from VA, 5 from Maryland).
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:including attempts to blockade the compound (which, again, isn't particularly feasible) This is BS, stop repeating it. Despite being on a fairly flat area there are a number of natural choke-points and the off road terrain is rough enough that anybody attempting to do so will be seen a mile away and intercepted. You don't need to form a literal physical wall to form an effective blockade. The likely reason it hasn't happened is politics, not any LE, manpower, funding/tactical reasons. A lot of people here has brought into their narrative, therefore play by their insane rules. Prester John in particular as his solution is effectively letting entropy sort it out. Oh, we will go after them "eventually", but waiting for that moment is stupid as you already have cause for it and can create your own moment. At this point you waited so long to take the shot it's moved and grown bigger. Terrorist are going to be terrorist no matter what you do. Arrest them, give them a fair trial and have them face the consequences they so richly reaped.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:Terrorist are going to be terrorist no matter what you do. Arrest them, give them a fair trial and have them face the consequences they so richly reaped. It's hard to arrest a pile of corpses, which is pretty much the only way the seditionists will be removed by force. All your approach will do is create a spate of martyrs in the age of social media. It would also turn Burns into a favorite target of right wing terrorists for the next decade. For now violence will only make the situation worse. That will change, but we are not at that point yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Am I seriously the only person who appreciates the irony of a literal crazy person crafting an entire mythology complete with it's own capitalized vocabulary out of while cloth in order to characterize a group of people she accuses of living according to a crafted mythology and have everyone nod sagely. Pot calling the kettle black doesn't even begin to cover it. The number of people willing to swallow this bullshit because it's coming from ideologically friendly source is disturbing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
Prester John posted:It's hard to arrest a pile of corpses, which is pretty much the only way the seditionists will be removed by force. All your approach will do is create a spate of martyrs in the age of social media. It would also turn Burns into a favorite target of right wing terrorists for the next decade. I said arrest them, not turn them into a pile of corpses before trying to. If you want to arrest corpses be my guest, but that isn't what I asked for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 02:20
|
|