Militia Takes Over Wildlife Refuge In Oregon

[tyrajam]

This is a real problem.

We let the Bundy's slip the first time they were breaking the law because they wanted a standoff. America let them off because we thought they would go away.

Now, we have another standoff. Let them slide again - more of the same, the terrorists win. Destroy the terrorism - inspire more terrorists. This is ISIS all over again.

ISIS? Good thing you're not given to hyperbole. Looks like these guys are trespassing, but terrorists? Per Webster terrorism is: "the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal". If you don't threaten anyone and you don't damage anything, you're not a terrorist.

 

[Kutnupe14]

This is a real problem.

We let the Bundy's slip the first time they were breaking the law because they wanted a standoff. America let them off because we thought they would go away.

Now, we have another standoff. Let them slide again - more of the same, the terrorists win. Destroy the terrorism - inspire more terrorists. This is ISIS all over again.

Agreed. At some point the govt is going to need to make an example. And while I don't wish for bloodshed, this is probably the govt's best opportunity to come down hard on these "Yee-Hadists" to send a message.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

I don't assume to know ID1176 motives for referring to the president as a Kenyan, but given then nations long history of viewing people of color as "not quite" American, and the incredible amount of spin one would have to buy into, to believe that, in the 60s, a white girl, with a black child, risks federal jail time, to smuggle her child into the United States (despite the child easily becoming naturalized) for the sole benefit of being able to attain the highest office in the land.... seems outlandish. I can easily see why when people see "the Kenyan," there a belief of racial bias attached.

Given the whole birther controversy... it seems a LOT more rational to me to ascribe the comments to disagreement over citizenship. In general, I find it more useful to look to the more obvious and straightforward explanation as being more probable.

But I guess we can all find what we want to find.

And ID1776 can speak for himself.

As for the "lighten up, Francis" part... I think that's good advice for all of us, in these crazy times.

 

[Kutnupe14]

These aren't the same groups. This is reportedly about 20 people, some of whom were at the Bundy ranch.

Most of the hundreds of peaceful protesters at the Bundy Ranch have disavowed the taking of this building as an aggressive action.

20? I heard 100 - 150.

 

[Kutnupe14]

ISIS? Good thing you're not given to hyperbole. Looks like these guys are trespassing, but terrorists? Per Webster terrorism is: "the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal". If you don't threaten anyone and you don't damage anything, you're not a terrorist.

an armed group of men breaking into a building, saying they won't leave, and that they will physically resist attempts to expel them, ISNT a violent act? Lol, come on bro.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

To be clear, I seldom purple.

Yessir... my comment was directed at the casual reader, and just in case... I'm aware of your writing style - and certainly was not taking issue with you. Just clarifying da facts - so that no misunderstandings occurred.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Agreed. At some point the govt is going to need to make an example. And while I don't wish for bloodshed, this is probably the govt's best opportunity to come down hard on these "Yee-Hadists" to send a message.

It's a similar set up as at least one other time, the Clinton Administration decided to set an example: A bunch of gun totin', "militia"-types, with calls from many to simply shoot them...yep, they have a good opportunity to set an example with very little repercussion.

 

[tyrajam]

an armed group of men breaking into a building, saying they won't leave, and that they will physically resist attempts to expel them, ISNT a violent act? Lol, come on bro.

You do know it was a vacant building, right? If they had threatened anyone or chased off employees then sure. But camping out in a vacant building to get media attention... that is a stupid act, but since violence wasn't directed towards anyone, how can this be terrorism?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

an armed group of men breaking into a building, saying they won't leave, and that they will physically resist attempts to expel them, ISNT a violent act? Lol, come on bro.

Were the people that actually committed acts of violence in Ferguson and Baltimore terrorists too?

 

[Kutnupe14]

You do know it was a vacant building, right? If they had threatened anyone or chased off employees then sure. But camping out in a vacant building to get media attention... that is a stupid act, but since violence wasn't directed towards anyone, how can this be terrorism?

Not vacant, unoccupied. People aren't going to work because they're there.

 

[dusty88]

20? I heard 100 - 150.

We've heard a lot of stuff

The reporters who are actually there say they aren't sure how many but seems to be 12-20

This also matches what the Oathkeepers said who split off from these guys after the peaceful protest

 

[Kutnupe14]

Were the people that actually committed acts of violence in Ferguson and Baltimore terrorists too?

Some certainly, but I think most didn't really care about the politics of it, they just wanted to be ignorant criminals.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It's a similar set up as at least one other time, the Clinton Administration decided to set an example: A bunch of gun totin', "militia"-types, with calls from many to simply shoot them...yep, they have a good opportunity to set an example with very little repercussion.

Nope, not similar at all. Holding up on your own property is one thing, holding up on someone else's property, quite another.

 

[IrishSon of Liberty]

This is a real problem.

We let the Bundy's slip the first time they were breaking the law because they wanted a standoff. America let them off because we thought they would go away.

Now, we have another standoff. Let them slide again - more of the same, the terrorists win. Destroy the terrorism - inspire more terrorists. This is ISIS all over again.

Slip away? Breaking the law? ISIS?
Yeah, I wholeheartedly disagree with your entire sentiment.

As for the Kenyan reference, I'll agree with you there. I much prefer the term 'King Hussein'. It more accurately represents the level of respect that he demands, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Slip away? Breaking the law? ISIS?
Yeah, I wholeheartedly disagree with your entire sentiment.

As for the Kenyan reference, I'll agree with you there. I much prefer the term 'King Hussein'. It more accurately represents the level of respect that he demands, wouldn't you agree?

I guess you've never heard of a place called Jordan? Lots of respect extended to the guy running that place. Ill give you 3 tries at guessing his name.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Nope, not similar at all. Holding up on your own property is one thing, holding up on someone else's property, quite another.

I'm not talking about the underlying reason--nobody cares why they're doing it. They didn't care about the other episode(s) either. They painted the grim enough to picture, portrayed the human beings as being dangerous, and something needed to be done about it now, before it all got out of hand--and nobody cared. What's interesting is the political lines along which the rhetoric is coming.

 

[Expat]

If these militia folks would change their name to Occupy Oregon, I am thinking they would be supported by the libtards.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Just a tactical thought here. And I take no sides in the debate about the Hammond Ranch, etc. There's been injustice all around... blah blah blah.

If I was POTUS - would I: a) set an example as Kut describes above b) let it be c) let the locals handle it.

My two centavos... thinking tactically - if you have ever been to that part of Oregon (and I have) , it's like the back side of the moon. Totally devoid of anything but the occasional range cattle and coyote for HUGE distances. OK - these guys have 15 -20 folks in the HQ building or something. And a handful of people cannot go to work because of it.

So what to do? Given the amount of land available, get a few trailers and plop whatever offices are needed out there (a mile or so away - it's not like you are lacking for room...). Then yawn and carry on. Let the protest die under its' own weight. No need for press, no need for bloodshed. NOBODY visits the wildlife habitat. And the protesters aren't going to harm that. If you kill them off, they become Randy Weaver the second for some folks. Far easier to let it die.

At least that's what I would consider for now. Then if someone ups the ante??? Who knows...

 

[Kutnupe14]

Just a tactical thought here. And I take no sides in the debate about the Hammond Ranch, etc. There's been injustice all around... blah blah blah.

If I was POTUS - would I: a) set an example as Kut describes above b) let it be c) let the locals handle it.

My two centavos... thinking tactically - if you have ever been to that part of Oregon (and I have) , it's like the back side of the moon. Totally devoid of anything but the occasional range cattle and coyote for HUGE distances. OK - these guys have 15 -20 folks in the HQ building or something. And a handful of people cannot go to work because of it.

So what to do? Given the amount of land available, get a few trailers and plop whatever offices are needed out there (a mile or so away - it's not like you are lacking for room...). Then yawn and carry on. Let the protest die under its' own weight. No need for press, no need for bloodshed. NOBODY visits the wildlife habitat. And the protesters aren't going to harm that. If you kill them off, they become Randy Weaver the second for some folks. Far easier to let it die.

At least that's what I would consider for now. Then if someone ups the ante??? Who knows...

As long as after they scatter, they're rounded up (at least the leadership) and prosecuted, I'd be ok with that.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Just a tactical thought here. And I take no sides in the debate about the Hammond Ranch, etc. There's been injustice all around... blah blah blah.

If I was POTUS - would I: a) set an example as Kut describes above b) let it be c) let the locals handle it.

My two centavos... thinking tactically - if you have ever been to that part of Oregon (and I have) , it's like the back side of the moon. Totally devoid of anything but the occasional range cattle and coyote for HUGE distances. OK - these guys have 15 -20 folks in the HQ building or something. And a handful of people cannot go to work because of it.

So what to do? Given the amount of land available, get a few trailers and plop whatever offices are needed out there (a mile or so away - it's not like you are lacking for room...). Then yawn and carry on. Let the protest die under its' own weight. No need for press, no need for bloodshed. NOBODY visits the wildlife habitat. And the protesters aren't going to harm that. If you kill them off, they become Randy Weaver the second for some folks. Far easier to let it die.

At least that's what I would consider for now. Then if someone ups the ante??? Who knows...

"We should give them space to destroy".

Seriously though, until they start shooting people or blowing stuff up, just surround them, cut off the water, and power, and let them get bored, cold, and thirsty...then they'll want to go home -- then bust them. I think the little birdies in the sanctuary will be fine.