Why are you people trying to start a war that no one will win?

[Savannahmann]

I ask this in all honesty. I've been thinking about it for a week now. You people are out of your fucking minds. Let's begin with the Bundy Ranch shall we? What we were dealing with was not a Tea Party nut, nor a RW Tool, but a Sovereign Citizen. But so many here were foolish, and so many more in the media, and even Harry Reid was an idiot just a couple days ago.

The handful of nuts of the Sovereign Citizen movement have been praying for this day, when their fringe beliefs were associated in the mainstream media and especially by the Political Elite with RW idealism.

I've read several people on this site who suggested that these RW types would crap their pants if the shooting started. Some even put forth the story that Bundy was planning on using women as a human shield. Guys, you have no idea what you are dealing with. You have no fucking idea what you're up against, and you were clamoring for a bloodbath in the hopes it would teach the world a lesson and be rid of a few RW Gun nuts.

Look at the pictures again. Look at the video again. The "militia" types were wearing the same kind of body armor that the Agents wear. Some were even wearing better armor.



See the guy with the cowboy hat? His vest can be found here. http://www.ar500armor.com/operator-ii-plate-carrier-w-armor-and-pouches-coyote.html#.U1QRtMjD-M8

That vest will stop any rifle round short of a .50 Cal BMG round. That by the way tends to be much better than the class 3A armor worn by police. Those vests will stop only pistol rounds.

But so many of you were clamoring for a show of force, to show them who was boss. But what if the Federal Agents would have lost? Have you considered that? No, you all figured that at the first round the RW types would crap their pants and surrender.

The thing is this, a bunch of those militia guys are Veterans. That means the Government trained them to fight too. With more than a decade of Afghanistan and Iraq we have hundreds of thousands, even millions of Vets with combat experience. You have to assume that some of them were there, and they know how to fight, and they've done it in the past.

But either way the "war" turned out it would be a win for the RW. If the Federal Agents did win, they would have martyrs and video of the fighting for weeks of watching on You Tube. The Sovereign Citizen's would see a boost in their membership, and that's the last thing any of us need. Democrats would take an even bigger hit in the polls because it's our side out there demanding that the Federal Government get tough with a rancher.

But let's say for the sake of argument that you got your massacre. Then what? Every nut who knew someone there would be looking for revenge. They don't need the internet to organize, they are already organized gang. We'd have a civil war as we're going into an election season. Oh you could cancel the election, if you really wanted to throw fuel on the fire.

I don't know who at the BLM made the decision. Whoever it was, has my respect. Because they were smarter than just about all of you here. They recognized that if they continued they would be lucky to pull out a Pyhrric victory, and if they were unlucky, they would have lost the first battle of the second civil war.

Because either way it turned out, the population would be even more upset at the Federal Government. One of our users here posted a thread that we didn't have the forces to fight in the Ukraine against Russia. How many troops would we have for a domestic war? As soon as President Obama declared martial law, the war would be on and it would be one where everyone lost. By the time the dust settled, there wouldn't be a United States any more. There wouldn't be any group strong enough to maintain control over the entire nation, and if you think the Military or National Guard is plenty strong enough, think again. There are more than 300 million people in this nation. I doubt that you could field ten million including law enforcement and military organizations. So entire swaths of the nation would be lost, and what then? Ask for help from Foreign Militaries? Drive a few more into the ranks of the rebels why don't you?

I'm starting to wonder what planet you people live on, because you have no idea what is going on here on Earth. There is a movement called the 3%. These people are of the opinion that the Revolutionary War was won when 3% of the population was involved. Now many of you will decide that this is a real fringe movement.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_sacat=0&_nkw=3+percenter&_frs=1 Yep, pretty fringe gang. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=iii#/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=3+percenter&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3A3+percenter

So the next time you people are out there clamoring for the authorities to teach someone a lesson. Try and figure out what you're talking about, so the ones learning the lesson isn't us. Because this crap with the Bundy Ranch could blow up in our faces very quickly, and most of you are utterly clueless about what is going on because all you do is read other Liberals sites where you fantasize about how popular Democrats are and how fringe the RW is.

Limbaugh isn't failing in the radio business because he's too radical. He's failing because he's not radical enough for the RW today. They can get much more rhetoric from a number or sites on the web than they can from Limbaugh. Republicans are about to take the Senate Back, and besides denouncing those who warn you that the polling is showing this disastrous outcome, you all are just bouncing up and down because with Obamacare we're popular again. I read History, a lot of history. Do you want to know why the Pearl Harbor attack was successful? It wasn't because of a failure of intelligence to share information. Nor the failures of the commanders. It was ego plain and simple. We couldn't imagine the Japanese who we considered to be backward and buck toothed glasses wearing imbeciles being able to pull off such an attack. Even after the Battleships were sunk and burning we spent years pretending that the only way that the Japanese could pull it off was with help from the Nazi Germans.

I see the same mentality today, the idea that "they" wouldn't dare, and if they did, so much the better for us. The last thing we need is for anything to unite these people. So stop thinking that it's going to be easy to teach them a lesson. These folks are dangerous, and we need to keep them separate where the threat is one from various individuals, that we can deal with carefully and quietly. But a shootout in Nevada would have sparked a civil war, and nobody would have won that.

[MineralMan]

14. Please don't imply that a DUer is mentally ill

on this site. It's rude and unacceptable here.

[Cooley Hurd]

2. "You people..."

Umm...

[Sherman A1]

102. Agreed

I certainly don't.

[eShirl]

3. ..

[arcane1]

4. I'm not afraid of traitors too stupid to know the law, or the Constitution.

You're playing into their hands by trying to make us afraid.

[Savannahmann]

16. I'm afraid of ignorance getting us into a situation we can't win.

I spend a lot of time reading. Not just the Liberal pages in which I find great enlightenment and well considered arguments. I read the other side unfiltered. Guess what, their movement is large enough to be very dangerous. What they do not have at the moment is a unifying clarion call. Ruby Ridge and Waco were too long ago to be used.

No longer is the Michigan Militia the force to be concerned about. Those guys in the 1980 and 1990's were middle aged men who were veterans from Viet-Nam and their supporters. They were too old to be in the field anymore. But the movement of today is much more dangerous, because it is backed up by veterans of the various wars we've been fighting. They are young enough, trained well enough, and experienced enough to be very dangerous if they ever unite.

Keeping them separate and letting time pass is the best answer possible. A confrontation does nothing to help us, and does everything to help them. Look at the ongoing war against Al Qeada. How many times have we wiped out their leadership? How many times have we announced they were on the ropes, and effectively neutralized? Even President Obama made that claim after Osama bin Laden was killed. But they're back, and just as strong, and even smarter than they were. When you kill a person like that, you end up creating more terrorists. A lesson we're trying hard not to learn.

You should learn more about these groups. Read some articles. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/05/nation/la-na-sovereigns-20130406

Figure out what is going on, and then you will see the wisdom of doing whatever we can to prevent them uniting under a banner.

[oneofthe99]

21. It would actually be much more dangerous if they didn't unite

When they unite it makes it easier to plant or get one to talk when faced with life in prison or worse.

It's when they are mostly all splinter units working independently without a single leader which it makes almost impossible to stop.

You kill or capture one and they have families , friends that are pushed over to the other side.

That's what happened in Afghanistan , we created more Taliban and insurgents.

[Boreal]

44. "life in prison or worse"

Who the hell are you talking about? Life in prison *or worse* (murder?) for what?

[oneofthe99]

59. In case you missed it our Federal government and states still do administer the death penalty

for heinous crimes of murder . If those thugs opened fire on federal agents what should have been done?

slap on the wrist maybe...........that's what the hell I'm taking about.

[Boreal]

62. They didn't harm anyone

and the ones who did use violence were the BLM when they tased the son and knocked a woman to the ground. Still you speak of the death penalty?!

[oneofthe99]

65. This thread was talking about what could happen

What if they did ?, would you have the same opinion of them?

You seem you want to defend their actions and Bundy by your other posts.

If you support their actions and Bundy just say it......

[Boreal]

68. I've also written that's there's a lot more to this

Bundy owns the water rights and, I think (not 100% sure) that means he owns the land. There are also lawsuits, by environmental groups, ranchers, and tribes over a plan by Las Vegas to siphon away all the water from eastern Nevada, including in Clark county. IMO, this is about a whole more than grazing fees. Additionally, grazing fees are paid for BLM assistance, to ranchers, for help with land management, fence mending, and the like. The Nevada Cattle Ranchers Association pays such fees but Bundy is not a member and said he doesn't want BLM services. I am NOT saying know all of the intricate details, only that my impression is there's more to this than the general public is being told. People who don't live in the west and run ranches and farms also don't know the intricacies involving land ownership (water rights, mineral rights, grazing rights, etc) so I think it does a disservice to the truth to form opinions with out all of this information. I don't want to see this devolve into a violent confrontation, unlike a lot of other posters do, and I'm sure as hell not going to be running my trap about giving anyone the fucking DEATH PENALTY over something that has not happened.

[oneofthe99]

70. So your position is clear then

You defend Bundy and the domestic terrorists.( because that's exactly what it was)

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. You would do well to inform yourself,

he grazes his cows on FEDERAL land owned by the Bureau of Land Management and he is charged, like every rancher in the west, GRAZING FEES, the fees he has refused to pay.

I will leave it at that.

2. The Bundy family has owned its ranch since the 1870s. The ranch is only about 160 acres, which isn’t enough space to sustain the hundreds of cattle that Bundy owns. He insists the disputed land around his ranch belongs to the state of Nevada, rather than the federal government, and he says the feds have no authority in the area. He told the Sun the government is trying to sabotage his plans to someday turn the ranch over to his son.

3. Bundy doesn’t recognize the federal government. Speaking to conservative radio host Dana Loesch last week, he said he believes in a “sovereign state of Nevada” and abides by all state laws, but, “I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing.” (As The Atlantic notes, the Nevada Constitution says a citizen’s first allegiance is to the federal government.)

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/cliven-bundy-bureau-of-land-management-10-things-to-know-105735.html

If you intend to do this, you really need to do some serious research.

Here article and videos of the altercation

http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2014/04/10/mgk-range-war-blm-agents-protesters-clash-ranchers-son-hit-with-stun-gun/#.U1ROLeZdUSo

[Boreal]

98. He owns the water rights

and you keep writing misinformation, deliberately or unintentionally because it suits your agenda. In any event you are WRONG. In the western states, when you own the water rights you control the land and you don't owe fees for the use of that land unless you want to hire the BLM. The BLM also doesn't own any land so you're wrong about that, as well. It's YOU who needs to get informed and I don't mean from a news website. You want to pass yourself as informed on this then you better brush up on land and water rights. Bundy owns the water rights.

The federal government, in concert with environmental groups (who are NOT working to protect the environment) are harassing people with water rights in order to gain control of that water and divert it for cities and private corporations to sell it. The same shit has happened not far from where I live where Nestle/Perrier is pumping the water table dry, and wells are going dry, so they can sell bottled water.

[leftynyc]

110. If all you claim were actually true

The courts wouldn't keep ruling against Bundy. So it really doesn't matter what some clown on the internet thinks. The courts think he's a parasite who has been living off the taxpayers for long enough.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

113. Court ruling does not = right; see, Kelo v New London

Even then, I'm sure the court is rendering good-faith decisions about whether or not Bundy owes usage fees according to fed regulations but those regulations have destroyed dozens of ranches.

[leftynyc]

114. Of course courts can be wrong

That does't mean we get to decide for ourselves which laws need to be followed. Bundy has been mooching off the taxpayers for over 20 years - enough is enough.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

120. "That does't mean we get to decide for ourselves which laws need to be followed."

This nation was founded on people refusing to heel to the crown. The abolitionist states refused to abide by the Fugitive Slave Act. Mother Jones magazine, which so ardently speaks against Bundy, takes its name from a woman that was at the center of numerous violent labor clashes in opposition to established authority. We just memorialized the 100th anniversary of the Ludlow massacre where the mine owners had the government -- and its troops -- on their side. The civil rights movement operated in direct opposition to court affirmed law. War protesters burned draft cards. Every 420 rally is a giant middle-finger to the goons. Occupy made itself quite clear it refused to recognize the authority of the corporatist government and refused "lawful" orders to decamp.

This nation is one, giant act of civil disobedience.

Bundy has been mooching off the taxpayers for over 20 years - enough is enough.

It's scrub land. Let's be serious, shall we?

But do you know who else has been mooching off the taxpayer -- and for a lot longer than 20 years? The MIC/security state; and that is exactly who would be employed on American soil to suppress this episode. Only once they were off the leash they will not return humbly to their cage.

They will say if you protest the Keystone XL then you're impacting US national security. They'll say that speaking against corporate bailouts is a threat to economic stability. They will make anti-war protests an act of treason in the face of a foreign enemy.

Think I'm exaggerating? The Department of Education has a SWAT team to collect on student loan fraud. They send SWAT teams to raid Gibson guitars to determine if the paperwork for importing rare wood has been properly filled-out. Children are being gunned down in broad daylight for carrying airsoft rifles. THAT should be an exaggeration but it is now SOP in our militarized police state.

Never shine the jackboot thinking you're being clever at keeping it off of your own neck.

Screw the goons.

[leftynyc]

121. Yawn

You see, I'm simply not impressed with the argument that starts with "yes, but....". If Bundy is ready to go to jail rather than pay, that's fine with me also. Does he owe the money? Yes. Have the courts ruled against him? Yes, several times. I'm also glad this President was smart enough not to give them the martyrdom they were hoping for.

[nadinbrzezinski]

124. I live in the west and I cover rural areas in the west

You are dead wrong

Oh and the court say you are dead wrong too. I got no idea what your agenda is, and quite frankly I don't care. Per your claims you are the only one with the truth.

The truth is the courts have ruled against him for 20+ years! the truth is he refuses to recognize federal authority and ironically federal grazing fees are much smaller than state ones.

Have a good day.

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. after the son charged a BLM agent

some of us watched the life stream you know.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Look, I get it

I do not read the other side, I get unfiltered, 100% directly from folks in the field ok. So yes, I have been regaled with stories and how they are going to defeat the US Government and how they do not pay taxes... I could go on.

That said, they see this backing down as a victory, as the shot around the world, as their 4th of July and as a way to wake up the masses.

They are dangerous, but you do not back down from yes, terrorists. And I give Harry Reid credit, he deals with these asshats regularly.

Now let me tell you a real story. We covered a meet your pol on Saturday, because of these asshats we actually had a talk on exit strategies and how to survive. Guess what? It was one of those where GIffords was shot.

What you are asking all is to curl up and surrender, essentially.

Now what you said about media, mostly true, but that is because media in the race to get the scoop, rarely does any of the background anymore. I did a lot of that way back and continue these days due to these ass hats. So yes I know the differences between the sovereign, the militias, (they are not necessary the same) the oath-keepers, and a few others.

And they got wings, and they will now go on and do more damage. The Turner Diaries presupposed an attack on a Federal building. Why McVeign, a member of the sovereign movement, went after OKC. I do not expect the second american revolution to emerge from these guys. On the other hand, I expect a lot of violence, and something more like the infitadah and not the formations of the civil war.

And no, asking people to back down because the scary people have better body armor than the beat cops is like asking people to back down because the beat cops had 38s and the bad guys had automatics. You and I know how PDs responded to that.

[Savannahmann]

54. No I am not suggesting we surrender and give up.

I'm saying we avoid direct confrontation with groups of them, instead taking a page from the successful Elian Gonzales situation. In that the Government wisely waited until there were few if any protesters, and then acted swiftly, and then left the area. The Protesters stormed the streets and raged for a few days impotently, but what was the goal? The goal was to re-unite Elian with his Father in accordance with the law. That goal was achieved without bloodshed, and without rolling over the bodies of dozens of protesters.

In this case what is the goal? Is it to show the RW that they can't stand up to Federal Authority? Is it to teach the RW a lesson? No it is to carry out the judicial order. How is that best achieved? A massive confrontation does not get you a victory you can relax with. These militia types will depart soon, and then you round them up when they head to their home town, perhaps armed with a pistol, but likely unarmed at the local pharmacy or grocery store. Then you take them down with no loss of life and no bloodshed if at all possible. Then they are one standing alone against the gathered officers. Then you try them for their crimes, and you do so in the normal judicial way. You treat them as CRIMINALS, because CRIMINALS are not viewed with much love by the public. But by elevating them to Terrorists, which as has been discussed many times here and elsewhere on the web, One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. The fact that America called Nelson Mandela a Terrorist in the past seems to show that the term is interchangeable depending on the political climate.

I'm saying handle this intelligently, and handle it as small as possible. Because if it escalates, then nobody knows where it will end, but if we are honest, it will be bad for everyone.

[Mika]

61. The Elian Gonzalez rescue was an entirely staged and agreed upon op...

.. to save face for both sides.

Deal with it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. You are comparing a staged event with this?

Good luck with that.

[merrily]

103. I have never advocated for starting any kind war, but

a million dollars in tax money is missing. Which indirect, intelligent ways of collecting it are available?

As far as being armed, no one is armed more than the federal government and few entities are better staffed with people who are armed and trained. National Guard, too.

BTW, leftists, take note. You, too, can buy vests. Online even.

And, if you can possibly afford one--as one who withholds a million in tax money can-maybe you, too, should consider the purchase. Apparently, we're the only segment of the population that is largely unarmed, largely unvested and usually of interest to those who put down "uprisings," like, say, a peaceful demonstration or occupation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

126. And I used to own one

Ok, I was a medic working in a very not healthy area, and they do "expire."

If things continue to spiral though I am looking at spending the 1000 bucks, and getting two. After all, I really would hate to be shot at and killed due to lack of one at a news story. That said, highest protection I can get. These ass hats are using rifles, and the vest I once wore was rated for only pistol ammo.

On the bright side, they are getting lighter. I fear though that this will be common soon in the US.



Hey, news bunnies have an issue wearing their wildland fire gear correctly... this... will be fun to watch.

[merrily]

128. I googled for bulletproof vests, but did not buy one.

Yet.

Don't think I'll do the $1000 ones, though. I found less expensive ones. Maybe they won't be perfect, but I hope they would be useful to some degree with any weapons that are likeliest to be used against demonstrators in cities.

I very much believe the left should equip themselves defensively, from bandanas to bulletproof vests, as well as educating themselves on defensive measures to take when being maced, "kettled," etc. by law enforcement or others.

But, so far, I've been all talk about the equipment bit. I will get around to it one day. Hopefully, before I'm shot.

But using bulletproof vests or weapons as an excuse for goverment is pretty silly, IMO. Are we (the USG) expecting only unarmed, unvested terrorists? And, if we are, that's an okay approach?

DU is hilarious sometimes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

131. As a medic I had to go to shootouts

Another country, other rules. So did the sensible thing and got one. Damn thing was cozy in winter, but damn hot in the summer.

As a reporter, I might walk into a SWAT situation, or worst. See the poor reporters who had to cover the Bundy situation. One of the local reporters kept mentioning camera man who wanted to not stay there for long interviewing the militia types, since he was afraid of getting caught in the cross fire. That is an old grizzled camera man who knows his chops, and the dismissive tone of the reporter tells me he either was too dumb, or too sure of press never gets shot...(yeah right, like medics never get shot), either is not good.

As to defensive. Here is a piece of advise people seldom take. You know the most valuable training you can ever take? First Aid and CPR. If you can afford to, take an EMT course, but realize that you also need to learn how to improvise a lot of the equipment an ambulance is equipped with. And some of it, cannot be improvised (yes nasal canula I am talking about you)

But a lot of it can. I was fortunate that I learned both the improvise every piece of equipment that can be, and the here are your toys go play. So yes, if need be I can improvise splints and cervical collars, no problem. Hell, that be very much worst case, even a chest seal.

[merrily]

134. Luckily, a former employer of mine hosted a CPR course for employees.

Either the instructor was an unpaid volunteer or the employer got some benefit out of the course other than the obvious one, because that was one stingy, mean firm. (On the bright side, that firm motivated me to go into business for myself, which worked out well.)

Improvising things is part of what you find online if you google defensive measures for demonstrators.

[sendero]

47. We perhaps...

.... could not win the confrontation as configured in the standoff. But "we" will win because we have no choice. This "Sovereign Citizen" stuff is just bullshit and there aren't anywhere close to 1% of folks who think otherwise, much less 3%. And long before it gets to 3% it will be strangled in the bathtub.

I have not followed this (Bundy ranch) issue closely so I am not commenting on it per se. I am saying point blank the the SC movement will be killed in its tracks (and not necessarily with violence, there are many means available) whenever and however the Fed decides to do it because the country cannot function if everyone thinks they are immune to the law.

Many people claiming SC as a rationale for not paying income taxes are rotting in jail as we speak.

Those guys can buy all the guns and armor they want, as soon as they are a real threat they will be taken out. And the vast majority of the country will cheer, I pay my taxes and say "fuck you" to anyone that doesn't.

[Faygo Kid]

5. Much sense here, but too harsh on DUers

I don't like the phrase "you people." And you're right about the aging blowhard Limbaugh. But ultimately, I see the oligarchs (aka Kochs) prevailing and defusing this situation, with the help of their media allies (aka Fox News).

They use these tools when it suits them. But if the genie is out of the bottle, they could indeed have gone too far. But I doubt it - "going too far" is not a concept for them.

[Savannahmann]

17. I was not one of those calling on force to be used

The term You People was intended, and used in an effort to wake some of them up. We are starting to buy into our own charictorizations of the RW. Now we've made a big mistake in alligning the Sovereign Citizens with them. Previously the RW masses would have rejected the Sovereign Citizen arguments, but now they're going mainstream because nobody, not Harry Reid, not anyone was smart enough to use the facts in the argument. The media and the Politicians saw a chance to brush them all with the intent of discrediting them. Unfortunately that only served as a clarion call to create more of them. A predictable response.

[tridim]

6. FUD'riffic!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. I just think it's repugnant for people to cheer for/demand war.

Especially from the party that once upon a time denounced the chickenhawk-ness of Dick Cheney. Yet, here we have our own keyboard commandos howling for blood that won't ever be theirs.

People are actually demanding drone strikes be unleashed on US soil. Even if we (whatever that means) won (whatever that means) this nation would be so fundamentally mutilated the nation would never recover.

[tosh]

10. +1.

[Boreal]

49. Thank you

It's stunning and REPUGnant. It's time the keyboard warrirors get off their asses and go fight themselves, whether that's duking it out with a cowboy or joining the Ukrainian neo Nazis.

Sheesh.


I don't hate my fellow Americans (either "side&quot and I don't hate anyone in Ukraine (either side) and I'm buying into the violence mongering, some of which seems downright agent provocateuring.

[lostincalifornia]

8. I am not sure who is clamoring "for a war" as you put it, but Harry Reid DID NOT call for violence,

what he did do is call what these people really are, domestic terrorists.

What the Feds did was very smart so innocents would not get hurt. There are a lot of things that can be done that do not involve violence.

Perhaps you didn't here, but in Utah there are a group of Utah repuke congress people calling for the state to take back federal lands.

This issue is NOT as easy as you claim it to be.

There are right wing, white supremacists groups that are actually a major concern that has been ignored for to long. Does bundy fit into this category?

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57836973-90/utah-federal-lands-states.html.csp

http://abcnews.go.com/US/stormfront-website-posters-murdered-100-people-watchdog-group/story?id=23365815

Rachel Maddow had a very in depth show talking about this. Ignoring this is not the answer either

[MineralMan]

9. You know, not everyone on DU wants to shoot all of these

militia morons. In fact, I wrote an OP on DU that discussed why the BLM made the right decision with a strategic withdrawal. The one thing that can't happen, though, is to allow a ragtag armed force to prevent enforcement of laws that prevent individuals from misusing public property.

This particular incident was handled correctly. Other incidents will, no doubt, be handled in different ways, and more preparation for them will be made. There will be no initiation of violence by the authorities, I'm sure, but if the militia idiots fire on them, they will lose, and lose badly.

In any case, I'd suggest you not use the words "you people" when referring to DUers as a group. That's a mistake.

[oneofthe99]

11. I agree in part what you're saying

If shooting started many of the members think it would have been a battle field type of war that would have ended
there , with people dead on both sides.

That would have been just for that day but the guerrilla war which this would have started would last a very long time.

[arely staircase]

32. better just to arrest those kookoo birds when they least expect it.

pointing those weapons at the feds might have been fun but it won't seem so much when they are doing some hard time - which is pretty much a certainty.

[oneofthe99]

37. Yes it is , not during a stand off

"better just to arrest those kookoo birds when they least expect it"

[Logical]

12. You totally ignore the huge win and confidence it gave these nuts. Short sighted I see. nt

[Savannahmann]

20. Pfui

At the time I commeded the move to de-escalate the situation. I pointed out how the Federal Government handled the Elien Gonzales situation. They did not plow through the protestors with tanks and take the child in the midst of a running gun battle. They waited until a holiday, and then in the early morning hours moved swiftly to take the boy from where he was beign held. This was after the Government said they weren't going to do anything before next week.

I pointed out how the smart play was to back off and wait until the supporters left and then move in and make the arrests and carry out the Court Order. Then leave before the supporters return.

Win the battle smart. Sun Tzu says to fight the enemy where they are not. The alternative would have been a bloody bastard and the result would have been growth of the extreme RW and worse Sovereign Citizen movement.

[Logical]

24. Wait and see how this turns out before claiming a win on this. nt

[CTyankee]

63. The federal government has ways of making certain groups wish they were never born.

I want the full force of the government brought down on these "insurgents." The IRS alone might be able to give Bundy a very expensive hell in which to live for the rest of his life. Nobody here wants a bloody shootout, but we sure want to see rough justice.

[Mika]

64. Sure. And Donato Daylrimple just happened to be there, right?

The asshat who claimed to have rescued Elain, but didn't, just happened to be there on the night of the raid?
LOL.

And just happened to be the person handing the kid back to the feds - with a Miami Herald photographer situated just perfectly for this award winning photo? Get real.

It was entirely staged by arrangement of both sides.

[notadmblnd]

13. Excuse me? Seems to me the only people that were itching for a showdown are you rightwing types

And the ones that said they were going to put the women and children out front are the asswipes that joined Bundy at his ranch.

[Savannahmann]

22. So by advocating smart action instead of bloody confrontations I'm RW now?

Sweet. When intelligence, pacifism, and eschewing violence is the hallmark of the RW what does the Liberal movement stand for?

[notadmblnd]

34. You're giving a lecture to the entire DU community like you are.

I saw no one here advocating violence. The plan backfired. The government didn't take the bait. Now, you're trying to tell me that the people that showed up armed to the teeth were eschewing violence..... lol

You implied that people here made inaccurate claims that these people were willing to sacrifice their wives and children, when in fact the nut jobs that were interviewed by fox news said that it was their plan to put their wives and children upfront and center to be killed first because it would gain the rest of the country's sympathy.

You speak of these nutjobs with adoration as if they were all powerful and you want me to believe you're not right wing? Yeah, Riiiight.

[Savannahmann]

38. No

I said I eschew violence. You said I was RW. I said I am a liberal.

It isn't adoration. It is wary interest. They are dangerous, and they are more numerous than you want to think. As long as you pretend I am one of them, you have made your third mistake.

Your first was in underestimating them.

Your second was assuming they were best dealt with using open aggression.

Those nut jobs interviewed weren't there. http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2014/04/19/mgk-conflict-surrounding-cliven-bundy-continues/#.U1QpY8jD-M_

Human shield controversy

It has been widely reported that Richard Mack, a supporter of the Bundys and a former Arizona sheriff, told Fox News that a strategy had been put in place to set women on the front lines during the standoff, according to TheBlaze.

“If they are going to start shooting,” Mack said, “it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”

Mack is the founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officer’s Association, and arrived in Nevada to support the Bundys, albeit after the standoff took place, Ammon Bundy said.

The Blaze is the news arm of Glenn Beck. Normally, anything quoted there is automatically discredited on DU. But when it serves a purpose like furthering the image of the militia types as cowards, then it's useful right?

I will say I am thankful that you are not in a position of power over any of the agencies involved in the Bundy mess. Because you would have gotten us into the war I am hoping to avoid.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. I know who the sovereign types are

tell me, ultimately, did Timothy McVeigh win? I did not know OKC started that civil war either. Or that they arrested every fed in sight.

The problem with this logic is that sooner or later that confrontation will happen. You prefer people just fall and turn into the fetal position?

Yes, they are well equipped, we go back into why we should not allow MIlSpec gear into the hands of civies. That said, thanks for the link, I need to find one that says press, for the inevitable day when all this, but, but but, leads to an actual shooting war.

[old guy]

45. You are correct.

The confrontation will happen unless the Bundy bunch gives in which I don't see happening any time soon. The government holds all the cards so his only option is to overturn the table and pull a gun. Now what does the Government do? No matter the option they choose Bundy will meet it the same way he has hoping for a plea deal. I just really don't have any good answer.

[House of Roberts]

18. I'm not worrying about the militia types having better body armor.

I think the government can always up the ante, technology-wise. Sooner or later these nuts are going to have one of theirs cap a fed, and then it will be Waco and Ruby Ridge by a factor of ten.

[oneofthe99]

25. It's not high tech that I would be worried about

[House of Roberts]

31. No. But this won't be the last standoff either.

Next time the Feds will be better prepared. Maybe even have better intel on the principals as you suggest in another comment. It only takes one shot to start it.

[oneofthe99]

35. I agree the feds weren't ready for what happened and it won't be the last time these nuts

try this but now at least the feds know everything about the ones that showed up.

You can be damn sure of that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

19. So we should just overlook these "Soveriegn Citizen" movements and hope they go away?

Look the other way....Mollycoddle them? Treat them with kid gloves? They are not "sovereign citizens" there is no such thing....

They are traitors, since they have now aimed weapons at Federal Agents and declared the U.S. foreign to them...they should be dealt with as the criminals that they are. That is now a "criminal" movement. And since they are as dangerous as you admit they are....then they should be dealt with swiftly....before those damn fools hurt somebody...

[oneofthe99]

28. I'm sure they are all under surveillance now , license plates , photos taken

Let the FBI do what it does best and let cooler heads work on this.

[VanillaRhapsody]

87. and what do you propose the FBI do?

nothing?

[oneofthe99]

97. There's plenty they can be doing that doesn't involve a shooting match

with these thugs because that's exactly what they wanted.

[VanillaRhapsody]

116. If that is what they want.....shouldn't they find out just how outgunned they are?

They are criminals and deserve to go to jail. If they don't want to go quietly (and they don't because they don't recognize the Federal Govt) then that is THEIR choice. These guys are dangerous....

[oneofthe99]

143. No , they can be detained and arrested when they leave

At their homes , work , while out shopping etc...

First they have to be charged.

[VanillaRhapsody]

144. Oh yeah we know all their names...right....yeah that is how law enforcement works....right

You don't always have to charge BEFORE you get arrested. IF you are detained for a period of time yes....there has to be charges....but YOU can be arrested anytime...particularly if you are "demanding that the federal officers hand over their weapons" while having snipers on overpasses with their sites beaded on the Federal officers....Oh and almost forgot...."we should put the women and children up front" (if that part doesn't scream domestic terrorist I don't know what does)

[oneofthe99]

147. I didn't want to see anyone killed

All it would have took was just one ass### to fire a shot and then all hell would have broke loose.

If you read my posts I agree what Mr Reid said but this can be handled without bloodshed .

[VanillaRhapsody]

148. Who does....but these guys ARE dangerous and ARE planning mayhem....

they were willing to go this far.....what do YOU think they are capable of? They most certainly DO NOT put on kids gloves if they raid a biker compounds....and chances are...like these guys they are heavily armed. You go do the arrests if THEY want to start firing shots....then they must be met in kind. Did you happen to notice the type of bullet proof vests many of these guys were wearing? Better than those that typical law enforcement have. These guys are gearing up for war....one way or another....do we wait and let them create a catastrophe....or arrest them when you have them dead to rights breaking the law. (Just pointing a weapon at Federal Agents is breaking the law)

Doing nothing ALSO emboldens them....and others unfortunately.

Do you know that these guys are connected to those guys that tried to detonate that bomb at the Martin Luther King Day Parade....you know the failed one using rat poison to make sure the victims bled out...yeah those guys.

[oneofthe99]

149. That I didn't know about the bomb

I watched the videos and the pictures posted of the guy on the bridge.
How that guy isn't in jail yet is a little disturbing to say the least.

They know who he is so I'm going to guess when he returns home he is going to be arrested and charged.
My take on this and it could be wrong is the Feds are going to do this systematically on video and photo
evidence on anyone who threated a federal officer with violence .

What I wouldn't like to see is every protester arrested who had no weapon or who made no direct threat.
I think it would be a very bad precedent to blanket arrest protesters because of a few people who broke the law
during any protest.

[meanit]

71. Absolutely.

+ 1000

[Lurks Often]

23. It was very disappointing to see the posts here hoping for violence

especially over such a relatively minor issue. This has been going on for 20 years, what was the sudden urgency to crack down now? If BLM really wanted Bundy, they should have waited for him to leave the ranch and taken him custody then. Instead BLM turned it into a rallying point for far right extremists and worse, BLM was put into a position of having to back down or open fire.

Anybody who thinks that the people who were present to support Bundy would have crapped their pants and ran is delusional. Many of them were combat veterans or taught by combat veterans and the rest were on average probably at least as good if not better shots then the BLM agents. Most law enforcement officers just aren't that good a shot with their firearms.

As bad as BLM backing down was, what the fuck do people think would have happened if someone had opened fire and the BLM agents LOST?

And those of you counting the full cooperation of law enforcement or the military are also delusional. If you can't get the Colorado's County Sheriffs and New York's County Sheriff's & many of the State Police troopers to enforce gun control laws, what the hell makes you think they are going open fire over something like the Bundy situation?

[arely staircase]

26. I hope they can be arrested peacefully.

But if they start a shooting war with the federal government it won't be without a winner.

[VanillaRhapsody]

88. Do you think after pointing weapons at Federal Agents....that we should not send the SWAT

Team in there to deal with them? These people pointed sniper weapons AT FEDERAL AGENTS!

Do you know how they deal with Outlaw Biker groups when they decide to arrest them? These folks should not be treated any differently. These are HIGHLY armed people with a SHOWN propensity towards violence and they DO NOT recognize FEDERAL authority. They are dangerous and should be treated as such.

[arely staircase]

29. are you a libertarian? and please don't take offense

but I swear I don't think I have ever seen a post of yours take a left wing position on anything except where liberals and libertarians agree - drug war, war war, etc. I am not accusing you of being one I am just asking.

[LordGlenconner]

30. Send in the drones

And pass the hyperbole.

[Bigmack]

33. That's the problem with Liberals...

... they can generally see more than one side of a situation. The knee-jerk Right doesn't have any of that complicated-thought-process thing going on, so things are simpler for them.

I see:

1) A terrible situation if the Feds back off in any way. It encourages the nuts. They're slow, but they can learn. If the Feds backed down (in their eyes) because of a show of force, they'll use that tactic again and again until something big blows.

Speaking of "sovereign"... if the Federal government is not sovereign... that is... if it doesn't enforce the laws and control the fringe...well, it's not "sovereign".

In the Whiskey Rebellion, Washington rode at the head of the troops putting the rebellion down. With overwhelming force, the rebels disbursed.

2) A terrible situation if the Feds go in with force. Somebody is gonna get killed. The nutjobs will have their martyrs...and we lose some good officers.

So... this is a real shit sandwich. Fucked either way.

A possible way out..? I have an imperfect plan. Arrest everybody connected with this shit quietly. Send them to Fed detention centers spread across the country. The "plaid shirt" guy set up on the overpass has his name all over his picture on the web. Him first. 4AM...overwhelming force.

IRS them to death. Pressure employers. Child protective service them to death... kids are in danger with all that firepower. Any deadbeat dads? Traffic tickets? License tabs up to date? Anybody here want to assure me that shit like that doesn't already happen?

Weak...? Yup. Chickenshit...? Yup. Go ahead and tell me I'm fucked up. But. Have a realistic plan to put forward on how the government is supposed to act in dealing with armed thugs when you do.

Waiting for the "sovereign citizens" to get older and slower and more moderate just ain't gonna work. This is their hour... they think. The Feds are on the run!

[Savannahmann]

42. Your plan has a better chance of success than the face them down crowd

[meanit]

86. The first thing is to take away the "glory" from these guys,

and portray them as the traitorous, terrorist scum that they really are. That way, when the Feds finally do have to take them on, they won't be portrayed as some kind of freedom fighters. But that's awful hard when you have nothing but pure, seditious propagandists like FOX news, Hannity, Beck and the rest of the right wing owned media egging them on. Similar garbage is even pumped into the heads of our young and impressionable military personnel via Rush Limbaugh, on a daily basis.

But continuing to back down to these traitors is not the way to go. We've been doing that for years and it's only gotten worse and will continue to do so. I find the sight of a right wing lunatic with state of the art equipment sighting in a federal officer with his .50 cal. sniper rifle in broad daylight to be quite disturbing actually. Then to allow the right wing lunatic to leave, laughing with his cohorts about the situation simply adds insult to injury. There needs to be consequences for this type of behavior. Perhaps backing off in this rancher incident was the best thing to do at the moment, but to let this go entirely will only embolden more actions like this.

[mac56]

158. This

[MrMickeysMom]

36. I give you a big "un-rec", cause you've been watching too much Hannity...

It's absurd to generalize. Are you sure there isn't a little bit "April 20th" fever inside you instigating this interesting OP?

I'm pretty sure the majority of DUers know the difference between someone like Hannity, who was chomping at the bit to during his interview (which got nowhere) to start up a patriot war and that comes up and is discussed occasionally?

If we need anything to stop uniting these people from "you people", it's to change channels to another Fox program… Cosmos - Sunday night right after Simpsons and Family Guy.

Yeah, baby… peace out.

[Savannahmann]

41. It was posted today because this is the first day off I've had from work for most of the week.

I worked most of last week including Friday and Saturday. I work 12 hour shifts, and for some reason when I'm off on those days I don't post much. I sleep, eat, play with the cats, the dog, talk to my neighbors, run errands, and I read. If I don't play with the cats they decide that I've slept enough and arrange to wake me up.

To watch Fox news I'd have to turn the TV on, which I do rarely. Then I'd have to find the cable remote, which is in one of these drawers somewhere. Then I'd have to figure out where Fox is. That would mean turning it off of the Discovery channel, which is what it's been on for months now, whenever it is turned on. As for Cosmos, I'd rather wait until Monday morning when it's downloaded from iTunes as part of the subscription.

As for the April 20th Fever thing, I'm going to have to look that up. I didn't realize that was a thing. I see now, it has to do with marijuana. Ok, I'm in favor of legalizing, but I tried it once and learned to my sorrow that I am allergic to it. So unless the effects have lasted more than thirty years, I think I'm safe. But thanks for the new thing to look up, it was interesting.

[MrMickeysMom]

46. No… not that… I'm talking about Patriot's Day...

around this time… Waco, Boston, near the actual "patriot's day" celebrated.

I have no idea about the marajuana legalization…

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. Do not forget about the other April 20th, that matters to some of these asshats

Hitler's Birthday

[MrMickeysMom]

55. Ah… yesssssss...

And, thus…. Hannity's fishing lure, followed by those out there stirring up that pot…. not that pot, of course….

[Savannahmann]

85. Didn't know about Patriot's day either

There is much I am unaware of, but the thing is that I am always reading, and considering. I remember what I've read, and I remember to apply it to things I see going on.

Again, the purpose of posting this today was the first day off I've had in a while.

[DirkGently]

39. Women as human shields wasn't a "story."

It was a plan.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/04/15/3426702/militant-former-sheriff-planned-to-put-women-up-at-the-front-if-violence-erupted-in-ranch-showdown-with-feds/

But some allies of rancher Cliven Bundy were prepared to make as much of a media spectacle as possible if violence were to erupt, saying they would put women on the front lines in the event federal officials turned to deadly force. Former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack told Fox News Monday, as reported by the Blaze:

We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.

Mack, a self-professed Tea Partier, is one of a host of right-wing figures who stood behind Bundy and made him a conservative celebrity after he refused to pay grazing fees based on his claim that the federal government is not entitled to own land.

So yes, there are craven cowards there, however honestly a few of these rifle-toting loons think threatening federal agents with murder over confiscation of a fistful of illegally grazing cattle is somehow a just cause. These are sick people with a demented mindset. They say they are for freedom and America, but to them that means freedom to threaten to kill anyone requiring them to hold up their end of the social contract that makes this a country in the first place. It's a stupider, more violent version of the entitled economic elites who likewise think the rest of us owe them something because of who they are.

I hope no one here is hoping for bloodshed. I haven't seen that, myself. These dangerous goofs should be arrested for the crimes they have committed.

But no, it wouldn't be a "civil war." The public at large would not bat a particularly concerned eye if one of these yahoos drawing down on law enforcement from the comfort of an overpass were shot dead on the spot. No one wants it, but they're the ones who think that's a winning scenario for them. Thus the nutty fantasy about getting the cops to shoot women. Straight from the Taliban playbook, let us note.

These are disturbed extremists, while we all -- save for elements of Fox News and Alex Jones -- hope their visions of a destructive confrontation never take place, they would lose promptly and decisively. No one thinks they aren't dangerous, but neither are they the vanguard of some great wave of powerful rightwing unrest.

If they were ever to get the faintest taste of the reality they think they are prepared for, all the toy soldiering in the forest and all fascist regalia and tactical gear, all the fancy black rifles in the world won't help them, because the country is not, and never will be, on their side.

[Hoyt]

40. They need to be arrested one by one and tried as terrorists.

[Niceguy1]

66. theu are criminals

Not terrorists......so far they have only messed with blm.. not thw definition of terrorism.

[Louisiana1976]

72. +1

[Boreal]

43. Whoa, I stopped right at "sovereign citizen"

That isn't true. I'm assuming you didn't know and are just repeating something you've heard. I heard him interviewed and the interviewer tried to associate (and thereby smear) him with that and he had no clue what it was. That interviewer who did that was that snake Glenn Beck.

Bundy isn't part of any group, he's a rancher, ffs. He also owns the water rights to that land. I'm a lifelong vegetarian and animal rights activist and even I can understand that for people like him, they eat, breathe and live the land and cattle and horses and everything that goes with that life. More important, he's not of those truly evil factory farmers.

I now went back and read the rest of your post and agree that civil war is a bad idea (to say the least!). I disagree that Bundy or any other rancher is dangerous. I don't see any ranchers calling on city folks to be droned and murdered. I see plenty of that bloodlust here, though, and find it shocking and appalling. Somewhere in the course of 30 years, my party has turned into violence loving authoritarians and I'm very upset about it.

I've spent my life living in cities until 10 years ago. I now live in a sub rural area and while I just have a house, my neighbors raise horses, farm, and work with their hands. They're all good people. Very salt of the earth types, like people out west who have lived that way for generations. I do not get this hatefest that's going on toward these kinds of people. Something is NOT right about this. Same for Ukraine. People support neo Nazis in Kiev creating their own whatever kind of society but have a hate-on for the anti fascists of the east and south who also want the right to go there own way. WTF?

[Savannahmann]

51. The beliefs of the Sovereign Citizens and his match too damned closely.

Bundy even used the term Sovereignty referring to the state and local authority over Federal Lands several times. Bundy during his interviews discussed how the Federal Government had no legitimate authority over the land in question.

So while he may display ignorance over the term, real or feigned ignorance, the fact that his views match the Sovereign Citizens declared views does not brook much discussion.

[Boreal]

60. Okay

We'll see how that works out for you if you ever find yourself opposing the government, as in the issue of war, or the next time we have something like BushCo in power and they call YOU a terrorist. This shit cuts both ways.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Oh for frak's face, Bundy IS a Sovereign Citizen

and all this fracas comes from refusing to pay land use fees for 20+ years. And yes, he used the terms where he refused to admit the sovereignty of the Federal Government. He said that his family had been on that land before the feds, which is classic sovereign crap.

As to the rest, you seriously believe there are even close parallels to the Ukraine here? REALLY? Here is a square peg, try to fit it in the round hole.

[Boreal]

58. No, he isn't

and continuing to write that is libel. I occasionally agree with Louis Farrakhan and the Black Panthers. That doesn't make a member of either of those organizations.

I see what you're doing here. You even brought up McVeigh, trying to associate this man, Bundy, with THAT. That's downright malevolent. You're fond of citing the SPLC. Maybe you ought to talk about their involvement in that terrible crime. Oh, but, maybe not. Morris Dees said if he told anyone what he did he'd have to kill them.

I don't approve of agents provocateurs and cointelpro and I see you engaging in that kind of behavior. I'm hoping that's completely unintentional on your part. The anti war left was subjected to this stuff when I was younger and it needs to stop. It's not okay to do it to anyone.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. His statements are that

whether you like it or not.

And that is one reason why a slew of groups INCLUDING Sovereign Citizens showed up.

Look, some of this is as old as the Chaparral rebellion or a slew of others less known revolts in the far west, but it is what it is. As to McVeigh, he WAS a sovereign Citizen, and a member of the Michigan Militia and some of these ass hats really would love to get the glorious revolution started. And some of them will continue until they are killed by Federal Agents once it starts as well.

Mind you, they are far from the majority in rural areas, before you say I think that. Nor are they the majority in urban areas, some actually do live in urban areas too.

Like it or not, sooner or later the authorities will have to deal with them, and no, I am not looking forwards to that day either before you accuse me of bloodlust.

[Iggo]

96. You got farther than I did. I stopped at "you people."

[eShirl]

99. Is it true that he owns the water rights to the federal land?

How did that happen?

[lunasun]

129. ikr

[MannyGoldstein]

48. This needs to be dealt with, solidly

The best thing to do in that specific confrontation might have been to stand down: it seems that the rebels were well armed and in position to cause serious mayhem. By they are violating the law, and threatening violence; this cannot stand. Hopefully their identities are known, and they will be captured.

[Populist_Prole]

53. I Can't get over the difference between this and OWS vis a vis the authorities

It's just so blatant. Though the MSM is bad enough in its own right, I don't blame them. This is institutionalized partisan governing.

[Drew Richards]

56. You know..its too bad you start with a blanket accusatory indictment of fellow DUers...it leads me

To discount anything you post following the declaritive...even if you have some valid points.


Sorry man I usually enjoy your posts.

[Egnever]

57. Yes it is DU trying to start a war

[WinkyDink]

74. So just let the criminals win? Because it was a criminal act.

[Paladin]

75. Yeah, thanks a whole bunch for the snotty defeatist lecture.

Whose photo occupies a place of honor in your living room: Neville Chamberlain? Just whose side are you on? The radical, militarized right is already united in this country---they no longer need our help in getting to that dangerous stage. They're looking for an armed and bloody confrontation with government forces, and they won't be happy until it happens. There needs to be a clear and immediate designation of domestic terrorism criminality in this country, no more sweeping it under the rug. So spare us any further insulting jeremiads like this one, OK? I think you're posing a wildly exaggerated view of right-wing militia power---and I think you're enjoying it way too much.

[NutmegYankee]

77. You hit the enemy where they are weakest.

And it appears the enemy is a little lacking in anti-aircraft defenses.

[Savannahmann]

84. I sincerely hope you are joking.

Because if you aren't, then you are a bigger fool that I would have imagined could exist here.

There is an undercurrent, a conspiracy theory running around the net. It is that President Obama and the Department of Defense has been firing military commanders who would not fire on American citizens. By posting nonsense like that you do more to give such incredible lies legs than anything the RW could do.

Why do you think the Sheriff's department was more neutral than happy with the whole Bundy thing? Because that is their home, and they have to live there. Those deputies live and work in that community. The Sheriff is elected by the people in that county. Declaring war on your own consitutents is not exactly a great way to stay in office. Those deputies have families in that town, and if they are seen as little more than the black and tan boys that becomes difficult if not impossible.

The National Guard and the Military are exactly the same. One of the tragedies of the Civil War was brother fighting brother. Even in defeat, there was enough resentment and problems to make the entire process of more than a century which hasn't closed the wound.

I could give you dozens of examples from history where the more violence used on the insurgency the more the insurgency grew. Cuba, Viet-Nam, Cambodia, Russia, Afghanistan, and the list goes on and on and on. But for some reason this historical truth is lost upon you, and I don't understand that. I've heard that those who fail to learn from History are doomed to repeat it, but really...

Do you expect soldiers and airmen who are from those communities to fire on their own kin? Are you going to weed out those from areas in which the operations are ongoing? Eliminate all from Idaho when you invade that state? Are you seriously thinking that the military would open fire on their own neighbors and veterans from their own service?

There is an old saying. Beware of what you hate, because you will become that which you hate. We hated the Terrorists for attacking us. So we've attacked them, over and over again. We bomb them from drones, and it doesn't do a damn thing but create more terrorists. A warning that the left gave to ears that would not listen after 9-11. But we continue bombing, and they continue recruiting and adapting, and they continue to attack.

I hope you are joking, because if you aren't, then you have become that which you hate. If that is the case, I feel very sorry for you.

[DirkGently]

89. Brother vs. brother? Seriously?

Wow is this situation ever completely not like Cuba or Vietnam or Cambodia, or the Civil War, or any other real fight between real opposing forces.

Dealing with a few racist yahoos or tax protesters isn't a "war."

Militia nuts don't have that kind of ubiquity or power. They're the same handful of paranoid right-wingers we had when Clinton was in office. They put on $3,000 worth of tactical gear, and they fantasize about taking down "the feds." Or the minorities. Or the tax collector. Whatever wad of crazy they're chewing on. Sometimes they mix a few together.

THEY fantasize that everyone will stop in awe of their patriotism and lay down arms at their feet or whatever, but that's not an actual thing that might happen.

Because they don't have an actual cause. They think the U.N. is coming to take them to FEMA death camps in black helicopters, and you don't have to pay taxes if your name isn't written in all capital letters. That kind of thing.

This was about COWS.

Dangerous? Of course. Witness the plan to put the women up front so they'd be killed first. They've got all kinda "plans," these geniuses. Cowardly, violent ones. They're definitely willing to hurt people.

But it's not an "insurgency," nor are there so many kooks in these militia groups that taking them down would require "brother vs. brother."

They will pull something stupid and they will go to jail, or they will fight and they will lose.

[NutmegYankee]

112. LOL

You really fear these idiots don't you? You go on and on about firepower and body armor in your OP, when we easily have the means to defeat them all. I want this to be resolved peacefully first and foremost, but if Federal agents get attacked and killed, then the hammer should fall without mercy.

As for expecting national guard soldiers to fire on these guys, I myself took an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. I'm sure nearly all would uphold their oath. As for insurgency, that only works to force a foreign power to leave. We can't leave - this IS our country.

Oh yeah, and we've been here before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

[Paladin]

118. Well put. (nt)

[Savannahmann]

122. Why?

Everyone keeps bringing up the Whiskey Rebellion. Did we win that? Isn't Moonshine still manufactured? Wasn't bootlegging a major reason that prohibition failed? The military, coast guard, several agencies both federal and state continue to pour billions into the war on drugs, but so far success has been limited. The restrictions on Sudafed to eliminate Crystal Meth have resulted in an 800% increase in the production of this drug.

But we live here, and we aren't going anywhere. The War on drugs will be won, and with the increasing movement to legalize marijuana I think we know by whom.

But you are right. Obviously all that is needed here is a little force. But I ask you a question. If Veterans are a part of this movement, and it's undeniable that they are, how did they reach the conclusion that the Government is a threat after taking that same oath? Wouldn't their loyalty be without question?

[NutmegYankee]

123. Are the moonshiners engaging in active rebellion?

Sure, people disobey laws, but they do so usually in peaceful ways. Many people, including myself exceed the speed limit at times, but we don't go around threatening the cops with open warfare. The rancher was engaging in Civil Disobedience, and the authorities were/are taking him to task. Such is the risk. Civil Disobedience however, is not what we see with these armed madmen near the ranch.

The problem with the sophistry you keep spouting is you're mixing unrelated concepts as though they are related. The drug war has little to do with open rebellion. As for former veterans, some people are dishonorable, like Timothy McVeigh. Most can be relied on though.

Oh yeah, the Constitution states "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." If these madmen choose to attack federal agents, I have no doubt most soldiers (who swore an Oath to uphold the above) will have no trouble dispensing with the traitors.

[snooper2]

125. Jesus U. Christ on a pogo stick you are talking about .003 % of the population ROFL

They are also lacking in the procurement of these...




Hover by their heads for about a minute and these "tough guys" will piss their pants and go back to ranting on fucking YouTube LOL

[Savannahmann]

137. Yeah, they've won the war on terror haven't they?

Oh wait. Darn it, no they haven't. That's OK, because helicopters like that helped us win in Viet-Nam. Or Iraq, or somewhere. Damn it we won somewhere with Helicopters didn't we? Somalia was an excellent example of how Helicopters can bring victory against a determined enemy.

Let me check with my history sources and get back with you.

Damn it you are sounding like a Republican Chickenhawk with this need flashy crap to win a war. That flashy technology looks awesome, and can do some impressive things. But it can't win a war. Otherwise the War on Terror would be won. The Soviets used really impressive helicopters like the Hind in Afghanistan, and they didn't win either.

Don't you get it? I mean think for yourself for a change. If you open up on American Citizens with helicopters like that or the Specter gunships in the other post you will have a massive uprising. The ACLU will file lawsuits claiming you denied the American Citizens their due process under law. You violated Posse Comitatus, and while you were at it aligned thousands of new enemies against you. Haven't you been paying attention in Afghanistan or Iraq? Because that is all we are accomplishing with the War on Terror bombing from above, is creating new enemies.

The way to handle this is not to give into their meme and make them martyrs or soldiers for whatever version of America they think they are fighting for. But to handle them as criminals. Try them in criminal court. By calling them terrorists you let people know that sometime in the future, they may be considered hero's like Mandela who was also called a Terrorist by this nation.

Think it through man. The Irish Republican Army always got lots of funding from the Irish American community especially in New York, Boston, and Chicago. That is despite the fact that they were "terrorists". Yaser Arafat was a Terrorist and a leader of a Terrorist Organization who was met with many times by the US Government officially in an effort to find a peaceful solution to the problems of the region. Killing Osama bin Laden didn't do shit to stop Al Queda, hell they named a Library after him in Pakistan.

Haven't we learned yet? That when we hate, we inevitably become the thing we hate? We hate the RW militarized bomb the crap out of them chickenhawks that wanted to rule the world during the Bush years. But now we want to use the same military tech to bomb the crap out of our enemies.

Oh and for them being the .003%. The Southern Poverty Law Center shows 939 active hate groups. Those are just the groups that espouse hate toward minorities and that sort of thing. If each group has ten members, that is just about 94,000 people right there. What about all the individuals that aren't part of those groups? Most of those groups have far more than ten members each. Many of them have several hundred members. Are you sure you want to minimize them that way? I only ask because if they're no real threat due to their insignificant numbers, why would we need a twenty million dollar attack helicopter designed to take on tanks to fight the .003%?

[snooper2]

138. not sure what you are going on about, but we don't have to kill them

Just hover 50 feet over the fuckers heads and start pouring paint and flour down on them LOL---


maybe some chocolate milk just for fun

[OilemFirchen]

78. I have no fear of morons wearing cowboy hats.

Or, as mentioned previously, face mullets:

[99Forever]

79. Pick every one of these snot-nosed punks up...

... one by one and convict them of domestic terrorism they are clearly guilty of, and sentence them to life without parole. Then make sure it's made so public knowledge that it is impossible for anyone to not hear about it. Take all of their property and sell it at public auction, then use all of the proceeds to care for Federal lands.

[BlindTiresias]

80. Read this, please

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/hans-hermann-hoppe/an-action-plan-for-anarcho-capitalists/

"Without local enforcement, by compliant local authorities, the will of the central government is not much more than hot air. Yet this local support and cooperation is precisely what needs to be missing. To be sure, so long as the number of liberated communities is still small, matters seem to be somewhat dangerous. However, even during this initial phase in the liberation struggle, one can be quite confident.

It would appear to be prudent during this phase to avoid a direct confrontation with the central government and not openly denounce its authority or even abjure the realm. Rather, it seems advisable to engage in a policy of passive resistance and noncooperation. One simply stops to help in the enforcement in each and every federal law. One assumes the following attitude: “Such are your rules, and you enforce them. I cannot hinder you, but I will not help you either, as my only obligation is to my local constituents …”

-

The point is to passively resist while maintaining force of arms as a deterrent. It worked, and worked far better than OWS did as OWS had no such deterrent. If the government does nothing, they lose ground and open up a space for the new right to claim local and state government for themselves and thereby destroy the federal government indirectly. If the federal government intervenes directly by pushing back then this goes hot and the new right makes the case that they are vindicated. If the federal government intervenes indirectly by seizing assets you will likely find that the pockets of the new right run very deep indeed and they will prove to be far more resistant than they may appear on the surface to financial punishment.

Remember the new right does not care if -you- are convinced, all of this is to embolden the right wing. As far as the new right is concerned the average democrat/leftist is only good as a slave: "A member of the human race who is completely incapable of understanding the higher productivity of labor performed under a division of labor based on private property is not properly speaking a person… but falls instead into the same moral category as an animal – of either the harmless sort (to be domesticated and employed as a producer or consumer good, or to be enjoyed as a “free good”) or the wild and dangerous one (to be fought as a pest). On the other hand, there are members of the human species who are capable of understanding the [value of the division of labor] but...who knowingly act wrongly… Besides having to be tamed or even physically defeated [they] must also be punished… to make them understand the nature of their wrongdoings and hopefully teach them a lesson for the future."

[Brigid]

81. You lost me at "you people."

And it went downhill from there.

[Paladin]

111. +100. The "you people" and the tiresome posing as an expert re all things historical.

Oh, and the link in the OP to where you can get one of those Stronger Than Jesus vests, so you too can hang out with the Cool Kids---yet another giveaway......

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

82. I don't know from 'start a war', but...

anybody that doesn't 'recognize' the federal government doesn't deserve US citizenship, plain and simple. You're a citizen of 'the United States of America', and if you don't 'recognize' the federal government of 'the United States of America', then can't be a citizen of it, and the government should give you a choice of 'recognizing' it, or choosing to become a resident alien, without the perks and benefits of citizenship.

I also think that it's delusional to say that a shootout in Nevada would have started 'a civil war'. You want to talk 'ego plain and simple', you're talking the armed whackjobs in Nevada who think that domestic terrorism can 'spark a civil war'.

[cyberswede]

92. Advocating for the death of people with whom you disagree isn't cool.

I suspect a sleeper.

[Jake Stern]

94. And here I was thinking that we were a nation of laws

What a lesson: The sheriff won't do a damn thing if you've been cheating the Feds of lawful grazing fees for decades BUT I guarantee that if you get caught counting cards or passing a bad check that same sheriff will gladly haul your ass to jail.

Hypocrisy thy name is Clark County Sheriff.

[merrily]

104. We most definitely are a nation of laws. The volumes of federal state and local laws

that have been passed (and copied) here since the 1600s would denude some sizeable forests, if done all at once.

And we have paid tons in today's dollars to legislators who pass them, executives who sign them and prosecutors, police and others who are supposed to enforce them.

Still, we get about as much freedom and justice as the PTB are willing to give any one of us at any given time.

[Jesus Malverde]

100. There are many survivalists who have invested heavily for this scenario.

They don't want their investment to go to waste. They stockpiled ammo to use it.

Pretty sure some of the biggest disappointment is realizing the power of the gun in the face of government. Makes the left look like it stood down in the face of the Bush junta.

What's more powerful "not in my name" or "over my dead body"?

[merrily]

105. You'd think the federal government, National Guard and state and local authorities

would be among those well armed survivalists, wouldn't you? After all, they don't even have to use their own money for things like guns, armored tanks, bombs, etc.

Is the formation of this kind of group fresh news to government? Do we expect foreign or domestic terrorists to arrive unprepared and unarmed?

If government has no way of dealing with a group of armed people, something is very wrong with government. The notion that federal, state and local government are helpless in the face of an armed group and something about that is okay is just silly.

[Jesus Malverde]

117. The survivalist nut jobs envision a SHTF scenario

What prompts that could be anything. I remember talking to a retired commercial pilot in Nevada. He was bragging about his stockpile and seemed to comment he welcomed a SHTF scenario because he was "prepared" for it.

These guys envision anything earthquakes, grid collapse, economic desperation, virus outbreaks basically anything that breaks down society. A bundy massacre would be just another catalyst.

[merrily]

119. What kind of scenarios do you suppose survivalist federal, state and local governments are

supposed to envision? In fact, what kinds of scenarios do you suppose we pay them to envision?

I don't really care what what the right envisions. They are not doing it on my time or on my dime. Beyond that, I can't lawfully control them or hold them accountable, even in theory. My government is supposed to be able to control them on my behalf. And on yours.

I have only some degree of control, however miniscule, over my government. So, I focus on what I can control, at least theoretically.

Let's discuss further when the response of government to rw USian terrorists is as disproportionate as the response of government to peaceful leftist demonstrators or the Tsarnaev brothers. The equivalent of armored tanks on city streets and seven cities and towns on lockdown until one wounded 19 year old was apprehended. .

[Fumesucker]

108. We all know what the government reaction to "the left" brandishing firearms would be

[mattclearing]

101. So let me get this straight...

...you seriously think the Federal Government can't defeat the various right-wing militias if all-out war broke out?

I'm pretty sure there are municipal police departments who could defeat the various right-wing militias out there.

This is alarmist and doesn't even pass the briefest of smell tests.

I'm glad the BLM backed down and didn't allow this situation to escalate. It was the right decision to cool this off and take care of it in a peaceful and restrained manner.

They may well have been outnumbered, but the idea that somehow the Federal Government is in existential danger due to dudes with assault rifles is laughable.

[Savannahmann]

109. The Federal Government and the power of the gun eh...

How has that been working out regarding the war with Al Queda? I'm assuming we have them on the run and nearly eliminated. I mean, nobody is better armed than the US Government right?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/15/world/al-qaeda-meeting-video/index.html

Washington (CNN) -- A new video shows what looks like the largest and most dangerous gathering of al Qaeda in years. And the CIA and the Pentagon either didn't know about it or couldn't get a drone there in time to strike.

U.S. officials won't comment on that, but every frame of the video is now being analyzed by the United States.

In the middle of the clip, the man known as al Qaeda's crown prince, Nasir al-Wuhayshi, appears brazenly out in the open, greeting followers in Yemen. Al-Wuhayshi, the No. 2 leader of al Qaeda globally and the head of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, has said he wants to attack the United States. But in the video, he looks unconcerned that he could be hit by an American drone.

Despite years of war, and billions of dollars spent, and application of the best technology we can think of, nothing much has been accomplished except that they have gotten smarter. Their numbers appear pretty darned good considering that we are obviously more heavily armed than they are.

Sun Tzu wrote the Art of War more than two thousand years ago. I would quote the various applicable lessons to you, but the thing is this. It isn't about firepower. We had more firepower than the North Vietnamese, and we lost. We've been bombing the crap out of Afghanistan, and we're losing. The Russians had way more firepower than Afghanistan. Yet, in each instance the one with the most guns didn't win. There were other examples in history. The Cuban Revolution for example. Castro didn't have more and better weapons than the Army and Police of Cuba.

Think about it, and read some history my friend. Because the Government of Afghanistan is in serious danger because of some guys with assault rifles. The Government of Pakistan lives in danger because of guys with assault rifles.

[mattclearing]

140. Not the same thing.

This is a domestic situation, and the government has many more advantages than they do in foreign disputes, including unlimited man and firepower, near omnipotent communications access, and domination of medical facilities and infrastructure.

You're making an apples and oranges comparison. A better comparison would be the American Civil War, but even that was more foreign than it would be today, because states are no longer the separate entities they were previously. No one seriously disputes the superiority of the Federal Government. Yes, it's possible for a militia to wage guerrilla warfare, but unlike in a foreign country, there's nowhere for them to hide, and extremely limited capacity for assistance and survival.

[Savannahmann]

141. Unlimited manpower?

Last edited Mon Apr 21, 2014, 09:18 PM - Edit history (1)

How many soldiers are there? How many federal agents? How many National Guardsmen? If you include the Reserves, the Military can field 2.2 million including reserves of all branches including the Coast Guard.

Now, to deploy those active duty troops, which includes a lot of support specialties like supply and clerks and cooks and that sort of thing, you would have to declare Martial Law.

So let's look at Federal Agents. In 2004 there were 105,000 Federal Agents authorized to make arrests. Let's go ahead and triple that to just over 300,000 able to make arrests, or roughly speaking .1% of the population. Total law enformement availability is roughly 251 full time officers for each 100,000 people. Read that again if you think that is a lot.

In other words for every 251 cops federal, state, and local, you have 99,749 people. Ok, let's take out those who are in jail, figure we're down to about 99,000.

That means every cop would have to oversee 394 people. 40% of them are going to be Democrats, and about the same will be Republicans. We were talking about the three percent a little while ago weren't we? It looks like the cops and army make up well less than two percent including every clerk, dental technician, and cook.

That is not unlimited manpower. That is very limited manpower. Because to boost strength in one area, you have to move it from others weakening that area. Then you have to supply and care for them, which is where those clerks and cooks will come in right?

In other words, if those lunatics ever do reach their theoretical three percent threshold, they will outnumber the police and military.

But the cops are dedicated and sworn public servents right? In New Orleans during Katrina, that dedicated public service mentality lasted about three days, and then the cops abandoned the city and went off to save themselves. One could assume that they were running low on ammo anyway after shooting looters on sight.

Look at the LAPD during the Dorner manhunt. They stationed officers in front of the families of high ranking brass. Those officers shot a pick up truck with two old women who were delivering papers and were never charged with disturbing the peace. The first act was totally human, protect my family. That was one guy, imagine if it was ten, or worse, a hundred. Then protecting the citizens comes a distant second to protecting ourselves, and our families.

[BlindTiresias]

145. Jesus

You make a good, albeit frightening, point.

[mattclearing]

152. I think you over-estimate the potential numbers.

I don't see every Republican voter as a potential rebel soldier. This hypothetical situation disregards the extent to which most people are invested in the system and depend on local, state, and federal government for services, protection, and survival. It's not realistic, even in the event of a bloodbath, to presume all-out war is possible or even likely.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

115. "you seriously think the Federal Government can't defeat the various...if all-out war broke out?"

They did a helluva job in Iraq. The "best minds" in the nation sent hundreds of thousands of young men and women to pacify a strip of land the length of a single, mid-sized US state.

[mattclearing]

139. Not the same thing.

This is a domestic situation, and the government has many more advantages than they do in foreign disputes, including unlimited man and firepower, near omnipotent communications access, and domination of medical facilities and infrastructure.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

142. And the boys will be home by Christmas.

Bold words considering all the chest-thumpers aren't rushing to enlist.

[quaker bill]

106. No one ever wins any war.

Some survive it and others die.

The Administration was bright to not take the bait in this instance. Having a bloodbath over where cattle can be allowed to eat grass is insane. Garnish the man's assets and put a massive lien on his residence. Remove any gains he gets from the unauthorized use of federal lands.

Don't start shooting people over where cows are allowed to eat grass.

[Motown_Johnny]

107. Wow,

First off. These types of threats need to be dealt with sooner or later. The idea that trying to stop these domestic terrorists from breaking the law is starting a war isn't rational.

Secondly, I used the term "domestic terrorists" because you linked to a Wiki page which describes them that way. I'm not sure what you have against what Sen. Reid said since you seem to be supporting what he said in your post.

Thirdly, Some of the people there are the ones who claimed they were going to put women up front to be killed. They claimed it was a tactic to expose the government agents as killers. Of course the agents didn't kill anyone. I wonder if they understand that it was because their opinion of them was wrong.

Lastly (and I will stop here only because I could only handle the first 4 paragraphs of your OP) It doesn't matter what type of body armor or weapons they have. The US military could easily overwhelm them while being out of range of their weapons and by using firepower which their armor would be ineffective against.

[Lex]

127. "You people"?

Who are your people?

[lunasun]

130. ""But a shootout in Nevada would have sparked a civil war,""

[MicaelS]

132. Superb post.

I really do think some here want a war. They want to punish the Right Wing at any cost.

Of course given how many here absolutely loathe guns and the "gun culture", they of course, would never pick up a gun and use it to defend the country. They also hate cops, and would never become one.

Rather than put on the uniform and risk their life, limb, health, safety, sully their soul, karma and hands with blood, they would rather tell some poor bastard, just trying to make a living, to go and do their fighting and dying for them, while oh so piously remaining in the background and resting on their idealism.

In short, they resemble the Chickenhawks on the Right who claim their patriotism at every opportunity, but avoid serving in the military because "they're too valuable". So I guess that makes them Chickenhawks of the Left.

[Lex]

135. Nice slam and worthless generalizations against DU'ers. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

136. RKBA is over there...

that said, no, we do not want a civil war, or even a SWAT action, which this would be.

What we want is laws enforced equally. You have a bunch of OWS protestors and the feds (yes the FBI helped) and the State really go to town. This guy refuses to pay taxes and gets a few hundred of his friends aiming weapons at federal officials, which is a crime, and they all walk.

Yup, we know.

By the way, RKBA is over there. And if OWS even tried to bring ONE gun, more people would have died. And they were not doing anything beyond some old fashioned civil disobedience, not committing federal felonies by the bucketful

[warrprayer]

133. do the militia nuts

have helicopter gunships or bradleys with electric gatling guns?
Wake me up when they get those...

[Savannahmann]

150. Did the Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have those?

Did the Vietnamese have those awesome tools to fight a war with? How about the Somali people?

We were defeated by the Vietnamese. The Wermacht was defeated in Stalingrad by an army that couldn't manage to give every soldier a rifle. The Germans had the most advanced tanks, and the best trained soldiers. They had revolutionary weapons, and they still lost.

Here's a question for you. Where does the Helicopter go to refuel and rearm? The locations used to be called forward operating bases. Those tend to be lightly guarded if memory serves. A guerrilla attack there would take out all the helicopters, because they are impressive as hell in the air, but they won't go into the air without fuel and ammo.

Last question. How many Helicopter Gunships do we have? I'd be surprised if we had more than two hundred between the Army and the Marines. That comes down to what, four per state? Four Helicopters to hunt these guys down, burning how many tons of fuel an hour, over the 3.7 million square miles of the United States. Even if you double it, which is probably way too high a number, it still isn't much. That means long drawn out protracted warfare, which is hell for everyone. I guess you could toss in the five hundred or so tactical aircraft, that means fighters and the sort. But they have pretty high maintenance requirements too. Well, we could toss in the drones, and then we could start dropping bombs on American Weddings too. That would really show those RW dolts.

Now, who's to say that these guys won't attack armories to get anti aircraft weapons? They might even steal some of those pretty tanks you appear so fond of. But we haven't even discussed the limitations of tanks, because there is lots of terrain that they can't go into. Swamps and marshes are at the top of the list.

Now, one last question. Why did we stop using the Bradley in Afghanistan and Iraq? Oh that's right. They were being destroyed by IED's planted along the sides of roads. So Bradley's may not be the best choice. Now, how many country roads can manage to hold up to a Bradley going down it? I mean the Asphalt and the bridges? Another reason they went to those MRAP vehicles, they weighed considerably less than the nearly 28 tons that a Bradley brings to the party. I'll skip the maintenance requirements for a tracked vehicle, but suffice to say that there is a reason you see them hauled around on flatbed trailers. They are actually much more fragile than they would appear.

[warrprayer]

155. estimated 20,000

militia members in the U.S.. A small chore to dispose of them.

[oneofthe99]

156. That's a lot of people

[warrprayer]

159. I wonder

what percentage of them are actually willing to get wasted to give fox news better ratings?

[Savannahmann]

160. Link to the source for that number?

I only ask because I can't find one with Google or Bing. There are nearly 1,000 hate groups. That would mean that each hate group is made up of roughly 20 people. If each hate group is made up of a mere 20 people, why do we bother tracking them?

Check out this book for a very interesting look into the RW hate machine.

[warrprayer]

162. I think it was

Southern Poverty Law Center or something. Can't remember exactly where it was. And it has to be a guesstimate. Also I would bear in mind that these are probably widely scattered.

[BlindTiresias]

146. Savannah

It is not that people want a war they know will be a disaster for nearly everyone, it is that the war is likely going to come anyway because the far right will not stop until they have achieved complete and total control over all aspects of life.

[Savannahmann]

151. The principle in diplomacy is negotiation.

The old saying is Jaw Jaw is better than War War. I think that the BLM did the right thing in de-escalating the situation. Now, patience will let the loonies go home, where they can be picked up as they head to the grocery store. At most they'll have a pistol stuck in their belt, and it will be a reverse of the situation at the Bundy Ranch. The loon will be surrounded and out numbered with little choice but to surrender. Then as I mentioned above in one of the follow ups, you try them as CRIMINALS.

Criminals. We didn't try the Nazi's as Terrorists, we tried them for crimes against humanity. We took the honor out of the war service and through the rest of history showed them as criminals. What was the thing that we did that was so awful to the Omar Abdel-Rahman? You remember him I'm sure, the Blind Shiekh. We tried him as a criminal. All his nonsense was lain aside, and we focused upon his actions that were criminal. He was convicted not of terrorism, but of seditious conspiracy. The criminal act was treated like a crime and he was treated like a common criminal.

A Terrorist sees themselves as a warrior fighting for whatever is the motivation. A Islamic Radical Terrorist thinks they are serving Allah by doing the atrocities. A KKK nut like Frazier Glenn Cross who shot up the Jewish Center is being tried for his criminal actions. No glory resides at the defendants table. But by labeling them as Terrorists, we allow those who think somewhat like they do to paint the picture for their own and the consumption of like minded that this individual was a hero fighting for the cause. The stigma of Terrorist hasn't stopped the recruitment of more for Al Queda. The label of Hate Groups hasn't diminished those groups that feed on hate. If anything it helps them.

But the average people will get an image in their minds when the term criminal is thrown out there. A criminal is a thief, a rapist, a murderer, or even a drug dealer. Criminals are bad people, and we should put them away is the universal understanding that is almost instinctive within the species. America labeled Mandela a Terrorist. At the same time, the 1980's, America was helping to fund the IRA which was according to the British Government, a Terrorist organization. The Irish American community saw them not as Terrorists, but freedom fighters.

But a vast majority of the people do not want to be seen as helping a criminal. That is wrong in the minds of the vast majority. The term Terrorist is worn by many with pride. Yaser Arafat is one who wore it for many decades. Take the romance out of it, take the honor of the fight out. Take the glory out of it. Make them criminals, and treat them like criminals.

[Jeff Murdoch]

154. Oops!

[link:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/21/1293671/-Breaking-news-on-Bundy-Ranch|

[Savannahmann]

161. Well that will drive the RW into the arms of love and tolerance

Or not.

Prior to 1914, it was said by whom I forget at the moment that "some damn thing in the Balkins will start the next war". A year later, that damned thing came around in the form of the assasination of the Archduke Ferdinand.

The reason that was the damned thing was that everyone was ready for war, and far too many wanted it. If you could go back in history, and could prevent that one damned thing from happening, something else would. Hatred, resentment, and desire to teach your enemies a lesson about your own quality would turn it to a war.

Already the next possible trigger is brewing in the background. If this is ably navigated to prevent the outbreak of hositility, then what will the next thing be after that? Or the thing after that?

The Emporer of Austria didn't even like the Archduke Ferdinand very much. It was a chance to annex more territory, and teach the Balkin area who was boss. The RW doesn't need to like the focus of the Cause Celeb, and he need not be an honest and honorable leader. Because the symbol is often more powerful than the truth.

[Oakenshield]

153. Tanks, Drones, they couldn't have been serious.

If you want to humble these clowns, it would only take an armored personnel carrier rigged with a water cannon. You'll be able to disperse these ass-hats without risking lives. If the ass-hats return fire in the midst of getting drenched, they'll only succeeded in demonstrating their own utter impotence.

[ProSense]

157. Oh brother

So the next time you people are out there clamoring for the authorities to teach someone a lesson. Try and figure out what you're talking about, so the ones learning the lesson isn't us. Because this crap with the Bundy Ranch could blow up in our faces very quickly, and most of you are utterly clueless about what is going on because all you do is read other Liberals sites where you fantasize about how popular Democrats are and how fringe the RW is.

Limbaugh isn't failing in the radio business because he's too radical. He's failing because he's not radical enough for the RW today. They can get much more rhetoric from a number or sites on the web than they can from Limbaugh. Republicans are about to take the Senate Back, and besides denouncing those who warn you that the polling is showing this disastrous outcome, you all are just bouncing up and down because with Obamacare we're popular again. I read History, a lot of history. Do you want to know why the Pearl Harbor attack was successful? It wasn't because of a failure of intelligence to share information. Nor the failures of the commanders. It was ego plain and simple. We couldn't imagine the Japanese who we considered to be backward and buck toothed glasses wearing imbeciles being able to pull off such an attack. Even after the Battleships were sunk and burning we spent years pretending that the only way that the Japanese could pull it off was with help from the Nazi Germans.

Limbaugh is "failing" because he got his ass handed to after he tried to stand his ground on a line of attack. His owners are not losing advertisers because he's "not radical enough."

The OP is using Bundy in a bizarre way as a kitchen-sink attack on positions the poster doesn't agree with. What the hell do Republicans and the Senate have to do with the fact that people are glad that Obamacare is working?

What kind of criticism is that?

Here's a summary of this gobbledygook: Leave Bundy alone. It's the RW abandoning Rush, not the campaign against him that's causing his failure. Democrats are going to lose the Senate because people are "bouncing up and down" about Obamacare. It's your "ego" why you can't see things my way.

LOL!

Bundy is a crackpot, and it's time to hold his ass accountable.

EXPOSED: The Source Of Cliven Bundy's Crackpot Constitutionalism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024851227